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

November 27, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L129 - Wed 27 Nov 1996 / Mer 27 Nov 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

LABOUR DISPUTES

GREY CUP

EDUCATION FINANCING

WORKFARE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHUMBERLAND

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

HIGHWAY INSPECTORS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

CLARKE T. ROLLINS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUARDIANSHIP OF INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILDREN

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

HIGHWAY INSPECTORS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION FINANCING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

PETITIONS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

ADULT EDUCATION

TAX REDUCTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

LABOUR DISPUTE

PAROLE SYSTEM

RENT REGULATION

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

CHILD CARE

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

OPPOSITION DAY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise today out of concern for health services in my riding. I met with representatives from our two hospitals in Cornwall as well as the District Health Council of Eastern Ontario last Friday. Despite an extreme financial crunch, bed closures and employee layoffs due to reduced funding levels, these individuals explained they're doing the best they can to meet your financial targets. Specifically the District Health Council of Eastern Ontario will soon submit its recommendations for restructuring our two hospitals. They will do this by March, only four months away. They expect that the restructuring commission will respond in a few months, likely by summer.

In order that this process be completed fairly and orderly they ask the Minister of Health to defer for a short time his intended funding reductions to them. If the minister does not commit to this, local health officials fear they will have to slash patient services haphazardly.

I join these individuals and ask the minister to defer his funding recommendations to the Cornwall General Hospital and the Hotel Dieu Hospital so they can do their job in the best possible way.

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday the Mike Harris government introduced Bill 99, their legislated attack on injured workers through changes to the WCB. We've advised them there's going to be a major battle across this province on that legislation. I want to bring the House up to date on some of the results of their earlier labour legislation lest people forget, given the fact that this government never allowed any public hearings on their anti-worker Bill 7.

Right now we have in this province the following strikes, and this is not a total list of all the strikes that are caused as a result of your making scabs legal: UFCW Local 175 against IGA in Bancroft; USWA 6917, S.A. Armstrong in Scarborough; CAW Local 252, Bramalea Rebuilders; CUPE Local 2862, Ottawa Valley Autistic Homes; CUPE 3826, Ottawa-Carleton Life Skills Authority; CUPE 2191, Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living; USWA 950, Goldcorp, Red Lake; IATSE 173, Cineplex Odeon all across the province; USWA Local 5297, Branson Mercantile in the Ottawa region.

This is just a sampling of the strikes that exist in this province because the government made scabs legal again in the province of Ontario. There has been violence on these picket lines. There were no incidents of violence when Bill 40 was in place. This government takes the responsibility for every injured worker on those picket lines.

GREY CUP

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): This past weekend Canadians across the country were treated to a great Canadian tradition: the Grey Cup game. All the people in the stands and those at home viewing the game on their television sets saw what I believe was one of the best football games in Grey Cup history.

An event such as this doesn't just happen. It takes a great deal of work and many volunteers. This Grey Cup was no exception. There were many people behind the scenes working hard for their community during the year-long preparation leading up to the Grey Cup game.

Mr Ron Foxcroft and Mrs Marnie Paikin were the two people who co-chaired the Grey Cup committee. Both of these people, well known for their community involvement, eagerly agreed to take on the responsibility as co-chairs for the Grey Cup in Hamilton. But Ron and Marnie were assisted by numerous volunteers, headed up by another great volunteer himself, Mr Bob Hodgson. Bob took on the task of organizing all the 1,400 volunteers with such tremendous enthusiasm and undying effort that we saw volunteers involved in every aspect of the festivities.

In fact, virtually everything that went on during the four-day event, from manning the beer tents to musical entertainment to the wonderful Grey Cup parade and indeed the Grey Cup game, happened because of the many individuals in Hamilton-Wentworth who cared enough to volunteer their time.

Volunteerism is, as I've said before, alive and well in Hamilton-Wentworth.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to bring to the attention of the House the activity of people across the province today who felt it was essential to send a message to both the Minister of Education and the Premier. I refer to the people who know about your education cuts -- present and future -- and who know how education is and will be compromised as a result.

We're talking about people who for the most part have not been politically active before, ordinary folks whose concern for a decent education for their children has caused them to rise up and be vocal about their concerns.

Mothers for Education, People for Education and the Ottawa-Carleton Coalition for Education are just such groups, and today they took to the streets outside their MPPs' offices to ask that members such as myself take their message to Minister Snobelen and Premier Harris. The message is simple. They're saying, "We don't like your education cuts and we want you to stop them."

I'm speaking about people like Bev Rizzi of Mothers for Education from Thunder Bay, who today with other worried parents delivered report cards on the Harris government's record on education: failing grades in all areas.

Connie Hartviksen is the chair of the Port Arthur Collegiate parent council. In a recent letter to the minister she wrote:

"Although it is true that your government was elected on a mandate to eliminate the provincial deficit, you also promised that the cuts would not hurt the classroom.

"Already there are many signs in my students' school that the cuts are affecting the classroom -- more user fees, larger classes, fewer options....

"Our children are our future. Don't sacrifice them for your government's agenda."

Amen.

WORKFARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I want to commend today to members of the Legislature a piece of literature that is on circulation in the legislative library. I know that members of the government have been encouraged not to be confused by the facts around workfare, but this particular volume is of importance to all of us.

It is the result of a round table that was held on May 17, 1996, at the University of Toronto faculty of law Centre for the Study of State and Market. Its author is Robert Howse, who's with the faculty of law at the University of Toronto.

This is a preliminary draft which has been made available to us for our information because of the importance of this topic, and it is not for citation publicly. I would tell people in

summary that the conclusions are that mandatory workfare may cost a great deal in administrative and legal costs but have very, very few positive results; that it's unlikely to be successful in high unemployment areas such as Ontario; that child care and skills upgrading are far more important in terms of getting people into the workforce than mandatory workfare; that it should not be supposed that this is a budgetary saving and the proof in this book is what has happened in other jurisdictions.

I urge my colleagues to take this volume out and read it in your discussions around mandatory workfare.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHUMBERLAND

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'm pleased to be able to report today a milestone in the economic life of a major town in my riding of Northumberland. I was recently informed that Cobourg's level of employment has now recovered to pre-recession levels. In fact, in the first six months of this year Cobourg experienced a 5.4% increase in manufacturing employment.

While we have benefitted from strong performance in the automobile manufacturing sector, I suspect we're also benefitting from a resurgence of private sector growth and consumer confidence in this province. Economic indicators point to another year of strong growth in our exports and automobile sectors in 1997.

Since I'm not one to let an opportunity to promote my home riding slip by, I would like to point out today that Northumberland is open for some of that new business. We're on Highway 401 just an hour east of Toronto. We have a diverse economy that includes agriculture, tourism, service industries and automobile manufacturing companies. We have a well-educated, stable workforce.

I would encourage any new or existing business seeking lower costs, serviced industrial parks and a high quality of life for its employees to consider Northumberland. If you'll pardon the expression, Mr Speaker, we're yours to discover.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): On Thursday of this week I have the privilege of presenting my private member's Bill 78 for second reading. Today I am presenting the Minister of Transportation with 30,000 petitions from across the province urging the minister to strength the law and pass Bill 78 to protect our children.

These 30,000 people feel the pain of families and friends of children who have been killed by people illegally passing a school bus. These 30,000 people can understand the terror of a school bus driver watching helplessly as tragedy unfolds. These 30,000 people can feel the apprehension of a parent who wonders if their child will return from school safely. These 30,000 people can feel the anguish of a child whose life was forever changed by someone who felt their time was more valuable than a child's safety.

These 30,000 people feel that the endangerment of children cannot be tolerated and must be met with stiffer penalties, and these people are tired of seeing those who are charged walk away free because of a technicality. They feel that bus drivers must be given the power to protect children. These petitioners are sending a strong message to all members of this House to protect our children and pass Bill 78 into law. Perhaps I could have a page deliver these to the Minister of Transportation.

HIGHWAY INSPECTORS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): We learned yesterday, and actually we heard through leaks previously, that the government announced 700 positions at the Ministry of Transportation were going by the wayside. That's 700 families across the province of Ontario whose major bread earner will not have a job. It quite frankly will probably put those families in a very desperate situation.

In the riding of Cochrane South we learned yesterday by way of the media that 37 people within the riding of Cochrane South have lost their jobs. Basically, they were called to a meeting, they were told their services were no longer required and they were sent out without any opportunity of being able to bid on other jobs within the ministries.

But what's even more shocking is that the government is privatizing the people who are out there who are supervising the work that is done by contractors on the highways across Ontario. In other words, what's happening here is the government is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. The people who are out there doing the work in regard to supervising the work that is being done by contractors are going to be supervised by other private sector contractors.

That is wrong because in the end what the government is doing is giving contractors a blank cheque, because they will be able to arrange relationships within the private sector where the private sector contractor who is supervising the contractor in the private sector will say, "Listen, let's just pretend that certain things haven't happened," and be able to flow money one way or another. I say in the end that is bad for the people of Ontario and it is going to be bad for the drivers of this province.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): We've had three full days of debate with respect to Bill 82, a bill to improve the family support plan, and we spent some time on it yesterday. This will be the fifth day, with the NDP opposition motion with respect to the debate on Bill 82.

Today two groups held a press conference at Queen's Park. Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears is a group of women who formed an organization to fight against their children's fathers who are not paying arrears for the child support of these children. Today, along with Families Against Deadbeats, they asked, in fact pleaded with, the members of all political parties in the Legislature to put aside partisan politics and to pass the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act as quickly as possible.

These people know what they have had to go through to receive just a pittance of the money owed to them. Their children have suffered and they have cried for these children. These people want to know why this bill is not being passed unanimously and why the NDP today is placing a motion before this Legislature to ask the government to withdraw Bill 82.

I commend these groups, along with a young lady by the name of Samantha Diorio, who is 13 years of age and who spoke on behalf of the children of this province who are doing without because of a parent who is not adhering to a judicial decision which requires them to help pay for the upkeep and future of these children.

On behalf of the government, I commend these people for standing up for these rights and urge the government --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

CLARKE T. ROLLINS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent to recognize the passing of a previous member of this House, Clarke T. Rollins.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Quinte? Agreed.

Mr Rollins: Few members in this House have known the immense benefit of having a close family relative as a former MPP. I am one of those who had that privilege.

True, my cousin Clarke T. Rollins did not represent the constituents whom I have the honour of serving today, but his reputation has brought honour to the family name beyond the boundaries of the former riding of East Hastings.

From 1959 to 1981, Clarke T. Rollins was a member of this provincial Parliament. He may have been a man of few words, but not of few actions. His unceasing dedication to his people and his constituents in his riding and to his province set an example that we all should strive for.

To his wife, Beverley, and his sons Bob, Thomas and Andrew I convey my deepest condolences.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I too would like to speak of the passing of Mr Clarke T. Rollins, a retired Progressive Conservative member in this Legislature for the riding of Hastings-Peterborough, who died at home in Bancroft on Monday, November 25.

Mr Rollins was born in Coe Hill, Ontario, in 1911. He was a distributor of petroleum products, a business which he continued to operate while serving as a member of this Legislature. He served also as the reeve of the township of Wollaston for eight years and warden of Hastings county in 1950. Mr Rollins was first elected to the Legislature in 1959 and was re-elected five times prior to his retirement in 1980. He was also appointed as chairman of the St Lawrence Parks Commission in 1971.

Clarke was a dedicated member who believed in serving his constituents, a self-described country member who spent a great deal of time on road improvement, securing grants and loans for the riding and in building community centres to improve the lifestyle of his constituents. He kept in touch with his constituents by fostering a close relationship with the township and county councils of Peterborough and Hastings counties.

He once stated: "If people have problems, I am here to help them. I'm most anxious to see that everyone works." Former Premier Bill Davis said in 1971, "Clarke Rollins has done a great job of representing this riding and has been of invaluable assistance to me."

I would like to add that Clarke, as a friend and a mentor, has also been of invaluable assistance to me over the years. Clarke was always close to the people he represented and willing to address their interests at Queen's Park. He was truly a man of the people. I know that every member of this Legislature joins me in expressing our condolences to Clarke's wife, Beverley, and their sons.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I would like to express our condolences to the wife and family of Clarke Rollins, who served his constituents with distinction during his time in the Legislature, and it was a lengthy time in the Legislature.

Clarke was one of those individuals who was known as a true constituency man. He was an individual who probably knew two thirds of the people in his riding very well himself. While some of us may think what we do in this Legislature is of consequence, and indeed it is, and we believe that this portion of our job is exceedingly important, Clarke recognized that in fact the people he represented in his constituency should be foremost in his mind. He was successful as a constituency person because of that contact.

Even those who were not of his political persuasion -- Liberals, New Democrats and others -- admired him because he did not discriminate against those who were not of his party. He was there to help all the people of his constituency.

He was up and down the concession roads and the side roads and the main highways of his constituency. He was at the community centres. He was a person who wanted to obtain for the people of his constituency as much as he could from the provincial government; in other words, the fair share for the people in the constituency, which didn't have many of the assets in terms of a tax base that a large urban constituency would have.

I remember he used to sit in the back row for the Conservatives and never felt this was a reason to be looked down upon at all. He saw it as a distinction, because once again he recognized that the people of his constituency came first. If any of us wanted to learn a lesson of how to deal with our individual constituents, of all political affiliations, from all backgrounds, a good cross-section of his constituency, we could learn from the life and the experience of Clarke Rollins.

All of us in the Liberal Party express our condolences to the family. The province of Ontario has lost a man of distinction.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to join in expressing condolences to Clarke Rollins's widow and family on his passing. I remember, when I was first elected to this assembly, as a rookie member I was a couple of times taken down a peg or two by Mr Rollins, who was by that time a long-serving veteran of the Legislature and who told me to slow down a bit, that "You might just learn something if you listened." Some people are still telling me that, I suppose.

Clarke Rollins was a member who served his constituents well, as other members have indicated. He knew his riding.

He knew the people of the small communities and the farming community, and he served them in a way that many urban members may not fully appreciate, the way a member in a rural area can get to know people, to know the communities and to serve their interests, not necessarily by being particularly vocal at Queen's Park in debate but by ensuring that the needs of the communities and the families and individuals in the constituency were met on the basis of programs that were available from various ministries and, if the programs were not adequate, by expressing his views certainly in caucus but also behind the scenes to members of the government.

Mr Rollins was very successful electorally because he served his constituents in that way.

One wag, I recall, once joked that Clarke Rollins had a philosophy that "If it walks, pension it; if it doesn't, pave it." I don't mean by that he was simply a ward-heeler but rather a person who understood the need to improve the infrastructure in his constituency to make it possible for economic development to take place, because he was always concerned about the need for jobs in Hastings-Peterborough and in eastern Ontario.

Clarke Rollins served many years through many sessions, under three premiers in this Legislature. Previous to that, he served his community as a county politician and a municipal politician. He had a tremendous amount of support. He was held in high respect by his constituents and we, as members of the assembly and representatives of the people of the province, have lost a public servant in Clarke Rollins.

The Speaker: Thank you. I will ensure that the comments made by the members for Quinte, Hastings-Peterborough, St Catharines and Algoma are sent to the family.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUARDIANSHIP OF INSTITUTIONALIZED CHILDREN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. For several weeks now the Liberal critic for children's services has tried to work with your office to resolve the situation facing the Brown family. Despite our efforts and the even longer efforts of the Browns themselves, their situation remains unresolved.

The Browns are here today to request once again that you reconsider your government's policy to stop funding special needs arrangements for children like their son. Keith is an emotionally disturbed child. He was adopted by the Browns when he was three years of age and prior to joining the Browns, he was in an abusive home. The Browns have worked with local agencies for years trying to help Keith. But in 1994 Keith became violent and they realized that he needed more extensive help.

Keith has been assessed by local agencies, as well as by Dr Paul Steinhauer, a well-know psychiatrist at Sick Children's Hospital. They all agree that Keith needs to be in a residential program, as he is now, and that he needs the continued support of his family. But despite all the documentation, Minister, and all the pleas, you've refused to consider funding Keith's treatment. The children's aid society locally has said it would be detrimental to move Keith. Minister, I ask you why you think Keith's situation doesn't warrant --

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I would like to thank the honourable member for bringing this very important issue to my attention yet again. I will talk to staff again and see why we have not been able to come to a resolution for this family because I think we should try to see what we can do for those who are taking care of people with such difficulties.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I think you should understand just how desperate the situation is. Like most parents, the Browns want whatever is best for Keith. The children's aid society, the psychiatrist, the case workers have all agreed that what's best for Keith is where he is now: treatment in a residential treatment centre and staying in his family. Your government, your office and your representatives have consistently refused to make this possible.

What's absolutely crazy about this situation is the solution that has been proposed because, according to the local children's aid society, if the Browns will give up the custody of their child and he becomes a crown ward, the funding will be available. This is not about a lack of money, because the money is there for crown wards. It is not there for the children of families who want and must keep the care of their children.

We are told that Keith's is not the only case, that other families with other children's aid societies are in fact giving up their children as crown wards to make sure the funding for their children's treatment continues. Minister, why would you feel that you should force the Browns to give up their child in order that he can get the care he needs?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you again for the question. The difficulty we have is not that the minister or not that the staff who are trying so hard to work this out are forcing that family to do something. It's that the system we have, the services as they are being provided, the funding as it is given to those agencies is not meeting the needs of those families.

I share the frustration of the member opposite. We want to solve these problems. We are working very hard to solve these problems with those community agencies so families like this are not put in the situation where these individuals appear to be, because it is not doing them a good service; it is not helping the loved one they are trying to care for. So we do very much want to solve these problems.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, this is not a case that comes newly to you in the Legislature. This is a case that you and your office have been dealing with for over two months now. Your own MPP, John O'Toole, has written to you repeatedly on their behalf and even he has stated that the minister's response is not more favourable and he regrets that.

In your own correspondence to the family, you suggested that the family meet with the case manager at the Durham children's aid society, that all the parties arrange a meeting, that they assist in developing an appropriate plan of action. They did that on November 7, and at that meeting they were told once again, not just by the children's aid society but by the representative of your ministry, that the best thing to do would be to make Keith a crown ward and that would ensure the funding he needs for care until he is 21 years of age.

Keith does not need protection; he does not need to become a ward of the crown. That is bad advice. I ask you now, will you intervene? Will you make sure that Keith gets the funding support he needs to stay in the treatment home and with his --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I did not mean to imply that somehow or other this was a new case. It's just that I have great difficulty and concern talking about individual details of families in a public venue such as this. It's unfortunate that's where we are today. I hope we can find a resolution to this, because I know that everyone who was working on this case does not want to put this family in such a difficult position. I am very pleased to go back to my officials and say, "Why have we not been able to come up with a resolution for this?" and just see if we can. I would like to thank the honourable member for bringing this issue to my attention yet again.

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the announcement today that the fiscal and economic statement will be delivered tomorrow at 3:30. We are interested to see it being done in this fashion, but the government has indicated very clearly over the last month that this will be a very comprehensive document. The Minister of Finance indicated that the economic statement will outline an additional $3 billion in cuts. That was Mr Eves.

He also went on to say that the statement will outline the final $3-billion expenditure reductions that we feel we have to make in order for us to balance the budget. So it's a much-anticipated statement tomorrow. We are anxiously awaiting it; certainly Ontario is anxiously awaiting the details of your spending cuts.

Premier, can you assure us that your statement tomorrow will indeed do what the Minister of Finance promised, and that is to outline those cuts?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think I'll leave the minister's statement for tomorrow on what all it will include, but he has indicated that some of the reductions we are still waiting for -- the Crombie panel report for Who Does What -- and that tomorrow's statement and meeting with the finance committee will be more of an update on where we are at with the fiscal update. He has clearly indicated that some of the decisions -- there are a lot of very good news decisions to come out yet on some of the transfers and what not -- will not be made tomorrow but will be made in the fullness of time, as soon as we can.

Mr Phillips: The Premier will know that Ontario and the financial community were fully expecting this to be a comprehensive statement. Frankly, the word is that you've got the thing apart and you can't get it back together, that the government is incompetent, that its fiscal plan is in tatters and the reason we're seeing this announcement tomorrow, which for the public you should recognize -- 24 hours' notice, slammed together. It was promised for next week; it was promised to be a detailed outline; it was promised it would outline the transfer payments.

I gather from the Premier's answer it won't be there, so I will say to you that the financial community, the people of Ontario, the people who are going to be directly dramatically impacted by this are concerned about your competence. It looks like this statement will not do what you promised it would do only a few days ago.

Can you explain to the people of Ontario why suddenly you have decided that you are not going to tell the people the financial facts and that the statement tomorrow will be simply a small statement of a fiscal update and not what you had promised the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: I want to assure the member -- I know that following the committee tomorrow with the Minister of Finance, the member will be the first to applaud and agree -- that the statement tomorrow will outline that not only are we on

schedule but ahead of schedule; that all our targets and goals are achievable perhaps even ahead of schedule; that there will be no new reductions other than the levels we have already announced; that jobs are up; that growth is up; that business confidence is up; that investor confidence is up. The investment community is also very supportive and very positive.

I hope the Minister of Finance doesn't mind my sharing those thoughts and perceptions, but that is what the details he will be sharing with you tomorrow will translate into.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I imagine you're excited about the answer, and I appreciate it, but we're cutting into question period with 15-second applause.

Mr Phillips: I say to the Premier that you can't fool people. They realize that you promised you would outline in detail. Frankly, you don't know what you're doing. You can't get it together. The Minister of Finance promised it, and now you can't deliver. You can't hide that. It was only a week ago that the Minister of Finance refused to come to the finance and economic affairs committee. He said he wouldn't show up. Now, a few days later, he says he wants to come and present it.

Premier, this is an embarrassment to your government. It is a sign of incompetence. It is a sign that you don't know what you're doing. It is a sign that you promised only a few days ago to outline in detail the cuts, and I gather from your answer we won't see it tomorrow.

Premier, it is clear from the financial reports we've seen coming out of the bond rating agencies that your tax cut is going to have to cost $12 billion -- that's what they say -- in lost revenue. Every penny of that, you are going to have to go out and borrow. Will that document tomorrow outline why you want to borrow $12 billion to fund your tax scheme while you are cutting hospitals, cutting school boards, cutting municipalities and making seniors pay for their drugs?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the question and the opportunity. You refer to the bond rating. Dominion Bond Rating Service yesterday said that we're on track, that it's all achievable for this year and for next year. They say that if projections in future years are low, the numbers won't add up, that's right, so at one percentage point below forecast there will be additional reductions required. On the other hand we have a just over $650-million contingency fund in there. We are very prudent. We are very conservative.

What the Dominion Bond Rating Service numbers indicate is that if the other estimates are one point higher, we'll have a $3-billion surplus or we'll balance much sooner. But that is all in the future, that is in the out years and that is all speculation.

What will also happen tomorrow, with reference to the tax cut, is that the numbers will clearly show that the tax cut will not cost one cent, that in fact increased jobs, increased growth in the economy and more taxpayers will repay every cent.

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr Premier. New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier as well, because people in this province are becoming quite concerned by the kinds of signals they're getting from the Premier and his Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance said earlier in the fall that there's going to be an economic statement where he's going to lay out what has to be cut and where those cuts are going to come from.

Premier, we know that above and beyond the $8 billion in cuts you've already announced you will have to cut another $3 billion. The Dominion Bond Rating Service has confirmed that. They've also confirmed that your fiscal plan is in trouble.

A press aide said today outside the cabinet scrum that hospitals and colleges and school boards and municipalities would have to wait until the new year to find out what the cuts are going to be. Premier, do you confirm this? Is your government going to force all those people to wait until the new year to find out how much they're going to be cut and how many more jobs are going to be lost?

Hon Mr Harris: No, I can't confirm that. That's not been decided, that's not the intention of the government at this point in time, so that's not confirmable. Second, the Dominion Bond Rating Service says not one more penny needs to be cut to balance the books exactly as we said we would do in the Common Sense Revolution. What they say is that if growth in 1998, 1999 and 2000 is in excess of our very prudent projections, the budget will be balanced sooner or we could reduce even less, or if there is a major recession we'll have to revisit it. Quite right, that's exactly what we said, based on our projections.

They are now saying unequivocally, unabashedly, based upon our projections, the Common Sense Revolution adds up to the penny. Not another cent needs to be cut.

Mr Hampton: This is precisely why people out there get confused by the Premier. He comes in and says there is good news. People want to know what that good news is. People don't understand why the government keeps delaying its economic statement; people don't understand why they're not going to get an economic statement tomorrow; people don't understand why they're going to have to wait until the new year.

Premier, we know you have to cut another $3 billion. We know that money will have to come from hospitals, schools, municipalities, colleges and universities and that those cuts will mean thousands of jobs lost. Why don't you just stop the doubletalk? Why don't you simply say to people now, before Christmas, so they have time to plan their budgets, so they have time to deal with your cuts: How serious are the cuts going to be, how many people are going to lose their jobs and what are the impacts going to be?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly the Minister of Finance tomorrow will be laying out for you what has been happening over the past year, a fiscal update which will show you we are either on track or ahead of track in all the projections that are there. Second, before Christmas we will be laying out, as the Crombie reports and a number of decisions are made, all the decisions that are there. I would say within the next few months we will have laid out the projections right through to the year 2000 as we see them.

I can't imagine anybody sensing that there is any concern on this side of the House. If anything, our only concern is that we may balance the books ahead of

schedule in the Common Sense Revolution. But that's three or four years out. We're not making --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa East, come to order -- particularly the singing; come to order on the singing as well.

Mr Hampton: This is the root of the problem: Last spring the Premier said to the public that there will be no more cuts. Then the Minister of Finance earlier this fall started saying there will be more cuts and acknowledging that there will be billions in more cuts; the Minister of Education and Training starts talking about $600 million, $800 million from education.

Premier, people are getting really confused by your government. You are starting to look like the Mad Hatter, continually saying one thing but meaning another. Your Minister of Finance, the March Hare, is frantic because he is late and cannot make his date with the people. Then you've got your Chair of Management Board, the Queen of Hearts, who announces that 750 Ministry of Transportation workers are gone. Off with their heads.

It would be funny except it is sad --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Government members, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel come to order, and the member for Grey-Owen Sound, you come to order as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, just come to order.

Okay, thank you very much, go ahead.

Mr Hampton: It might be funny but the fact is it's sad. People are losing their jobs, hospitals are going to close, children are going to be cut in their classrooms. You have a responsibility to let those schools, those colleges, those universities, those hospitals, those municipalities know how much money you are going to take from them, how many people are going to lose their jobs. You have a responsibility to let them know that now, not some time in the new year. Premier, when are you going to do it?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me take exception to a couple of things the member said. Talking about job losses, the net job losses were your legacy: five years, 10,000 net job losses.

You alluded to health care cuts and you alluded to classroom education cuts. I want to assure the people of Ontario that in spite of the fact that Paul Martin has cut $2 billion out of these things, there will not be one cent cut from health care in the province of Ontario. There has not been and there will not be, nor will there be from classroom education.

Let me also assure the people concerned about jobs that contrary to the NDP record of 10,000 lost jobs, there are now 130,000 net new jobs in Ontario; even after some job losses, net new. We expect that kind of net job growth to continue and escalate in the years ahead.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My second question is for the Premier as well.

And you should know that there are 57,000 more people unemployed in this province now as opposed to last year. That's how far you're falling behind.

Thanks to the efforts of groups like People for Education, Mothers for Education and the Ottawa-Carleton Coalition to Save Education, parents all across the province gathered at constituency offices this morning to protest your cuts to their children's education. Soon they will have even more to protest. Your caucus had a presentation last week on your government's plans for education, plans that include $800 million in new cuts next year. Are you planning to cut another $800 million from the school board budgets? Are you planning to do that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Education would be delighted to answer that.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I apologize for the delay in responding; I was just handed a note.

For the member who said you hear the same answer every day, it's because we get the same question every day. The same answer is the one that I think satisfies the majority of the people in the province, and that's the reason why the majority of the parents and taxpayers are behind this government in its move to have a more affordable school system, a more accountable school system and a higher quality school system. That's what we promised the people of Ontario and that's what this government will deliver.

Mr Hampton: Minister, it was a very simple question. We know that your caucus has had several discussions in the last couple of weeks about education cuts and about where you're going in education. The simple question is: Are you planning to cut $800 million more from education?

While I'm at it, we also understand that part of your agenda includes a 5% rollback of the salaries of classroom teachers who are already doing more with less, and we also understand that you intend to introduce legislation to limit teachers' preparation time.

So I ask you again: Are you going to cut a further $800 million from education and are you introducing legislation to roll back teachers' wages by 5% and to limit preparation time, yes or no?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I was pleased to note a moment or two ago from the leader of the third party's comments that he has read a book recently, Alice in Wonderland, and apparently he's now taking a trip to a Fantasy Island of some sort, because this conjecture on his

part is not grounded and is without grounding.

Let me assure the leader of the third party of this: that what I've been discussing with my colleagues over the last few weeks and in fact the last few months is how to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of funding to have a high-quality school system for every student in the province and how to make absolutely certain that there isn't a second-class student in Ontario. I can assure the leader of the third party that there will be sufficient funds and there will not be second-class students.

Mr Hampton: Let me try again, because it's a very simple question. We know that the Conservative caucus has been discussing cuts to education. I want to ask the minister again, are you planning to cut $800 million more from education and are you planning to roll back teachers' salaries by 5% and are you planning on placing limits on teachers' preparation time? They're simple questions. People deserve an answer. Are you planning on these initiatives, yes or no?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you to the leader of the third party for an opportunity to rise in this House again to tell you exactly what my colleagues and I have been talking about. We have been talking about ways to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of funding to ensure a quality education for every student in this province. We have been talking about how to raise student achievement in this province so that we're no longer in the middle of the pack, so that our students in Ontario go to the front of the class, so that we have the best student achievement in the world. That's what my colleagues and I have been talking about.

You are having a flashback, sir. You are having a flashback to the time when your government was in power and you were imposing the social contract and you were raising the number of students in classrooms around the province. The leader of the third party is simply having a flashback.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Health. Your restructuring commission has struck again, this time in Lambton county. At first, people in the area were almost relieved because it appeared there wasn't going to be any actual hospital closure in Lambton county, but as it turns out, the commission hadn't stopped bulldozing community hospitals; it was just being a little less open about what it was doing. The fact is that all 52 acute care beds of the county hospital in Petrolia are being wiped out; they're being lost.

The hospital is being left with 20 chronic care beds and the future of those beds is "still pending." The 24-hour emergency department is being closed and all that the county's being left with is an 18-hour walk-in clinic.

Minister, the three area hospitals and the district health council had all agreed on a plan that would leave the Petrolia hospital intact and the commission said they thought the local plan made sense. Why did the commission turn that around and decide to plow under the county hospital in Petrolia?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): As you know, the ministry, as one of the parties to this process, is undergoing its review now. We're in the 30-day period where the community and the ministry and other people will make their responses to the commission. If it turns out like some of the other decisions the commission has made in other communities, at the end of the day I think we've seen very good acceptance and a willingness to work with the directives the commission has put forward in Sudbury and in Thunder Bay.

Perhaps that surprised some of us, in terms of the communities agreeing with many of the decisions the commission has made to date. I think its track record is pretty good. We have to respect the process that's set out in law, and this is the period for all parties to comment and voice their concerns to the commission.

Mrs McLeod: I can tell you what the residents of Petrolia are saying, what they're feeling. I can tell you about the concerns of surrounding communities like Wyoming, Watford, Oakdale and Oil Springs. They were numb at first, but now they're angry and they're frightened. They want to know what's going to happen if a resident has the misfortune of suffering a heart attack in the six hours their walk-in clinic is going to be closed. What happens to that person? A nurse at the Petrolia hospital has said that six-hour shutdown will force desperately sick or injured people to drive at least half an hour to get emergency care. She says that people are going to die, and you don't care.

It happened, coincidentally, that the member Mr Beaubien was away when the commission decided to bring down its report; he happened to be out of the country. Tomorrow the residents of Lambton county are going to be marching on Mr Beaubien's office, and we know that Mr Beaubien and his neighbour, Mr Boushy, have no reservations about telling it is like it is. I think it's important that you tell us today, Minister, what Mr Beaubien should tell his constituents tomorrow. Will you back his constituents' concerns about community health care, care in their own community, or will you simply let your commission go ahead and bulldoze their community hospital?

Hon Mr Wilson: I think all members should remind their constituents of the need to restructure, and all parties are on the record in this House as not debating the fact that the status quo cannot be maintained in our health care system. In light of federal cuts and in light of a growing and aging population, we have to change the system and we have to have a better system.

Today, people do fall between the cracks. We don't have that integration, that seamless continuum of care that health care providers and patients talk about. We don't have a perfect health care system out there now. If we don't address that system and bring restructuring and an integrated vision to it, and if we don't allow the commission to do its work without politicians getting involved, then we're not going to have much of a system at all to leave to our children and grandchildren, let alone present-day patients.

We have to move on what nurses and doctors and health care providers and patients themselves are asking for: a fully integrated system and, at the end of the day, a better system where we've cut the layers of administration, we've cut the waste, we've cut the duplication and we've driven every dollar humanly possible --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. New question.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like to send over to you this full-page ad from the Toronto Star. You'll see that there are thousands and thousands of names that have been placed in the Toronto Star, and there are ads like this with local names in 41 other communities across the province today. Tens of thousands of parents and others felt that this was the only way they could talk to you and challenge your child care review.

You failed to consult with families across the province. Invitation-only round tables are not community consultation. You have refused to have public hearings. You have not even told people what the time frame is for your consultation. As I travelled the province and met with people, I met with people in communities you went to where you held round tables before your report and where you have not gone back: in Ottawa for example, in Sudbury for example, in Hamilton, in west Toronto and on and on.

Minister, on October 2 you said, and I'm quoting from Hansard, "The list of groups that I've met with before...are the same group of individuals that we will be meeting with again in the future."

Two direct questions: On what date does your consultation process end and, second, will you live up to your commitment in Hansard and meet with the individuals and organizations --

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

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much for the question from the member opposite. I'm looking forward to whatever report she may wish to provide me, information on what she gathered in her hearings across the province. I had the opportunity to attend a portion of her first hearing, and I think those may well be of assistance in terms of the consultation we are doing. I have indeed met with the organizations that I met with before the report, I have met with them again -- my staff. There are continuing to be discussions and consultations with them to get their input and feedback as we decide what to do.

As I'm sure the honourable member knows, we have $200 million more that we've allocated for child care. That's $600 million. That's more than any other government in Ontario has had allocated for child care. I must also remind the member that that's more than twice what Quebec spends on child care, that's more than twice what Alberta spends on child care per capita, more than three times what the NDP is spending in Saskatchewan and about 10 times as much as the Liberal government in New Brunswick. So we do have financial commitments --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government members. Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms Lankin: Minister, you have not met with the same organizations that you met with before. Karen McMaster and others in Hamilton you met with on April 12 are still waiting to hear back to their request for you to come back to their community and meet with them again. The Sudbury group you met with on March 8 has not been contacted by your office for a follow-up meeting. Charlyn Monahan and the Ottawa group that met with you on February 27 have been waiting to hear from you for when you're coming back.

Minister, don't tell us that you've met with these people. You promised on October 2 that you would meet with the same groups and individuals you met with before. Your commitment's in Hansard. It is clear. Will you go back to those communities?

Second, there are communities that you didn't go to. Let me tell you about a Northumberland child care forum. They sent you date after date after date asking you to come and explain your proposals to them. You denied. You refused to go. Carol Watson, a farm wife in Markdale, made a public plea for you to come to her community and to meet with others so she could talk about rural child care.

Again, two questions: Will you tell us the date for the end of your consultation period so we know what we're dealing with and, second, will you return to these communities that you met with before and meet with --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I don't have Hansard in front of me, but I believe the honourable member had been asking me about the groups and associations that I had met with. I had a list of them in the report, and I read into Hansard on one of the occasions the list of the associations and the organizations that represent child care in this province. I have indeed remet with those groups and organizations. Have I been able to meet with every one of the hundreds of --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member would like me to answer the question, I'd be pleased to do so, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: New question.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question today is to the Attorney General. A constituent from the Niagara area, Shirley, is here today in the members' gallery. She has come all the way from Niagara Falls because she wants to see Bill 82 passed into law. She has been working very hard with Bart Maves, the member for Niagara Falls, who was unable to join us today because he's home with his wife and their newborn daughter, Ainslie. Attorney General, she feels that the only way she can receive her $13,000 now owed to her by her ex-husband is to see Bill 82 passed.

Shirley herself says he has changed his whole lifestyle to elude paying support to her. She believes the most effective way to get the money to her kids is through the suspension of his driver's licence.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oriole, come to order. Thank you. And the member for Welland-Thorold as well, come to order.

Mr Hudak: Shirley would like this question asked and I appreciate the chance to ask it. Thank you for that, Mr Speaker.

Attorney General, how are you going to help Shirley get the money that's owed to her?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Niagara South for the question. I can't comment specifically on this case. However, Bill 82 would give us the ability to suspend driver's licences. Anyone who relies on their licence will want to pay their arrears or enter into an arrangement with the support plan to pay those arrears. This will help us get money into the hands of women and children who depend on it. Without these enforcement tools, this plan runs a deficit of $100 million a year. We need Bill 82, and I hope we can get that bill passed to help Shirley and other women just like her.

Mr Hudak: As I said, Shirley drove here today all the way from Niagara Falls.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Tim, ask him about Downsview.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, please come to order.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the supplementary, ask when he introduced the bill and then when he called it. For 39 days that bill sat without being called.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Forty-nine.

Mr Bradley: For 49 days, Mr Premier, you let that sit on the order paper.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Thank you. The member for Niagara South.

Mr Hudak: Again to the Attorney General, Shirley came all the way from Niagara Falls hoping to see Bill 82 debated. Basically, she wants to know when she can look forward to the passage of Bill 82 so that action can be taken to help her and others like the women who have been to my office in similar situations. When do you think this bill will become law?

Hon Mr Harnick: Thank you for the question. This legislation is a priority for this government. Every member of this House, I would hope, would want to help Shirley and people in her situation and people who are feeling the effects of $100 million of deficit every year because we don't have tools within the plan to collect this money.

I'm dismayed that this afternoon we're going to be debating an opposition day motion where we're being asked to withdraw this bill, because the effect of that will be to hurt people like Shirley, to hurt children, to hurt people who are not seeing any effective collection being made and who are seeing $100 million added to the debt of this plan every year. I would hope that members would vote against this opposition day motion and would support what people like Shirley and her children need.

HIGHWAY INSPECTORS

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question to the Minister of Transportation: Yesterday you proudly announced the layoff of 700 inspectors and technicians from your ministry, probably the largest layoff in one day in the history of this province. What do you have to say to the 700 families who lost their jobs just before Christmas? What do you have to say to their children? What do you have to say to these men and women and their families?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): Because of the neglect of previous governments, we've had to put our money to use in protecting our infrastructure. With the duplication that presently exists within MTO, we must streamline MTO and be a much more productive deliverer.

As far as the services that these people delivered are concerned, we have a very good construction industry in the province of Ontario, a very good, mature construction industry, and we also have very capable engineers, renowned throughout the world, who are very capable of making sure that whatever safety the honourable member might be thinking about is not going to be compromised. The job will still get done.

Mr Colle: I think that's going to be very comforting to some of those children who won't have a Christmas present. Minister, you certainly have rewarded the construction companies with an early Christmas present. Now all the Ministry of Transportation will do is write cheques and then, when the highways fall apart, you'll write more cheques. How can you tell us with a straight face that the safety standards won't be compromised when you're allowing companies to inspect themselves?

Who is going to ensure that they don't cut corners and don't compromise safety standards when those who enforce those standards and act as the public's watchdog are gone? Who's going to be the enforcement agent now?

Hon Mr Palladini: First of all, this government has been very up front with our plan and also with the people who unfortunately have been laid off. I might add that the settlement was a very lucrative settlement, and certainly we're also confident that even with these layoffs and with the potential work the private sector is going to be taking on a lot of these people are going to end up finding jobs with the private sector. But it's still very important.

I want the honourable member to understand that we are still the owners of the highway. MTO still owns the highway. The private sector is in a very good position to deliver the services we need. The inspectors who are going to be required to make sure that safety is not going to be compromised will be there. I say to the honourable member that this government is committed to making sure that our provincial highway infrastructure is going to once again --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, thank you.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday when you replaced the current WCB with your new Bill 99 you said this was a move from compensation to prevention. Well, you're certainly moving away from compensation and you've got injured workers angry across the province. I say to you it's a public relations sham to suggest that you're moving seriously to prevention.

I have here a leaked cabinet document entitled Cabinet Submission Proposal and Recommendation relating to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It calls for enhancing the flexibility and reconsideration of the right to refuse unsafe work. The concept of enhanced flexibility is explained in an attached document.

You're going to create something called "the good employer program" and you're going to give the power to determine who sits on health and safety committees, the frequency of when they meet and inspection schedules to employers. Most unbelievably you're going to ensure that they may even be subjected to fewer, if any, ministry labour inspections. Minister, do you deny you're planning to give this kind of gift to your corporate friends in addition to the $6 billion?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I think the member opposite needs to realize there are various submissions prepared. At the end of the day there is one submission that goes forward. But I certainly make the commitment to you: I am just as committed to health and safety and the prevention of workplace accidents as you are.

In fact, last year, just for your information, we actually increased the number of inspections in this province by 7%. That was despite the fact that we had a six-week OPSEU strike. So I indicate to you we are strongly committed to health and safety and that our focus will be on prevention.

Mr Christopherson: I suggest to the minister that the document tells a very different story. If you are so proud of what you are doing in terms of prevention, why are you afraid to go out and have full public consultations?

Your document gives you various options in terms of the kind of consultation you could have around changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The pros of the one you rejected were: "Broadly inclusive process. Stakeholders, both organizational and individual...will be presented with an opportunity to input." This would have been a comprehensive tour involving public hearings in major Ontario centres. The con to that recommendation was: "Substantial exposure in local/regional media could result in criticism of the government/ministry agenda."

Minister, why don't you admit you can't defend your record on prevention any more than you can on compensation? Why don't you stand in your place now and say you'll accept the recommendation and that cabinet document that calls for full, public, province-wide consultations, the very thing we've had to force you into, time after time?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I simply suggest to you there are certain decisions that have not been made. You're very premature to be spreading information which is not totally accurate. When you were in office you actually cut the Ministry of Labour by $63 million and eliminated 351 positions. You cut health and safety inspectors by 8%.

We are committed. You see the new vision in the new act we have on compensation. We have the new focus. We have done more than you ever did in five years.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Education. Today was a day of protest, as the leader of the third party has stated, organized by some parents and supported in part by the teachers' unions and the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. What assurances can you give parents all across this province, not just those who took

part in this protest, that their children will receive a high-quality education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for the question. As we entered the chamber this afternoon I was discussing with my colleague the member for Halton North about today, about parents arriving in various riding offices to talk about education. In fact, the member had a couple of parents arrive in his office and was able to spend an hour or so with those parents talking about what this government has been doing. I understand from the people in my constituency office that we have had a couple of parents arrive today and I hope to have a chance to talk with them personally later on in the day.

It seems that parents, rightly so, are very concerned about the quality of education their students receive in this province. I've talked to hundreds of parents all over the province, and the message they send is very clear: They expect high standards of student achievement in our school system and they're dissatisfied with the mediocre results we have been producing over time in our school system.

I have assured those parents, and I'm proud to stand in this House today and assure parents across the province, that we as a government, my colleagues and I will not accept mediocre students --

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

Mrs Ross: Minister, what are you doing to make sure the government reaches out to parents? Is it your intention to conduct regular consultations with them?

Hon Mr Snobelen: As I mentioned in my first answer, I personally, and lots of my colleagues, have spent a great deal of time talking with parents right across the province, listening to their concerns and talking about some of the solutions this government is putting in place for the education system. On top of that we are engaged right now in a consultative process without parallel in the province's history.

I believe this is a subject of importance to parents and taxpayers across the province. We have two and a half million copies of our suggestions about education reform, secondary school reform, out with parents and students. We've received over 5,000 responses to date, and I recently announced that we're going to extend that consultation process to hear more from parents.

On top of that, we recently pledged to parents higher standards for student achievement in this province, and we've gone past that --

The Speaker: Thank you.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. It is good to know that the minister is finally taking note, because what's happening is an unprecedented activity. It's unprecedented because it involves parents. I don't know about you, but I've never seen parents organized or begin to organize the way they are now. I think what you're seeing today is only the tip of the iceberg.

In 40 to 50 communities all across this province parents are staying home from work to make their point. It's not just that they're concerned with quality, Minister, they're concerned with what you're doing. You implied earlier that parents support you in your fight for quality, but parents are concerned with what you're doing. What are you going to tell parents who are out there saying, "We want you to slow down; we want you to stop cutting education"? What are you going to say to those parents, and do you believe they're off track?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): As I said earlier, the member for Halton North had two parents in his riding office today. I had two parents in my riding office today. We're glad to speak with parents and we're happy they came out and really honour their commitment to their children. We have that same commitment.

I can tell you what parents have told me. Parents have told me they want to make absolutely certain that the standards of education in the province of Ontario produce superior results in student achievement. They are not satisfied with a system that is below Bulgaria's in terms of math results. They think we should be at the top of the world, not in the middle of the pack. So our pledge to parents to move the students to the front of the class has been well received by parents across this province, and our commitment not to send their children the bill for education. Your government, sir, and your government passed the bill for education on to the children. This government will not.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Minister, the parents are telling the rest of us that they're worried about the erosion of public education. They're worried about increased class sizes. They're worried about less resources being available for their children. They're worried about less flexibility in the system. They're worried about the lack of special education resources available to those children with special needs. They're worried about the direction you're going in. They're worried about the speed you're going in. They're worried that they're not going to have a system in place that will ensure the needs of future students.

My question to you is simple: Will you assure those parents who were protesting today that you can guarantee that your next round of cuts will not negatively affect or impact any student in any classroom anywhere in Ontario? Can you give them that reassurance?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can tell you this. I've talked to parents right across this province repeatedly and they have told me this about the speed of change: They want higher standards for their students and they want them now. The want a system of education that doesn't pass the bill on to their children and they want that now. They want improvements in our system now. We've heard those parents and we will have those improvements now.

I can assure the parents of Ontario, because I already have. Myself, my colleagues, this government have made a pledge to parents -- we've publicized that pledge to parents -- that we will raise the standards of education in this province, and we intend to be held to account for that promise.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday in London, seven family support plan recipients filed an application in the Ontario family court asking that there be an injunction against the director of the family support plan to compel the director to pay all the payments owing to those recipients which had been received by the plan and to find the director in contempt of court for having failed to remit the support payments to those people which had already come in to the coffers of the plan.

Their lawyer states in the application that every one of these seven women's problems started when the London regional office closed down. It's been reported that these women are owed $5,175 and that they have confirmed that their ex-partners have paid this money into the family support plan.

Attorney General, you've dismantled the family support plan. You're forcing women to seek legal action against the plan in order for them to get the payments that they are legally owed and that have been collected. Why are you forcing women to the expense of seeking legal action in order to get the money the plan has owed --

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

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): In the first few weeks of November we've disbursed cheques to 115,000 people. As we reorganize the family support plan, one of the building blocks to doing that is Bill 82. I can tell you that Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears has written to the leader of the third party and has said: "We believe that the Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, is good legislation and will accomplish our goals for tougher enforcement. That is why we need you to stop your political games and expedite the passage of the legislation.

Putting your political motives ahead of the needs of Ontario's children is reprehensible. Shame on you." That's what Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears says about your tactics.

Mrs Boyd: The mothers against fathers in default, or whatever your group is called, are quite right that the enforcement issues --

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Show a little respect. That's typical: Run down the people of the province of Ontario, run down the groups. That's your attitude. Take it out on the mothers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, I apologize to the group. I only know them by their acronym, which is MAFIA, and I didn't know the details of the name. I know very well that they have lobbied hard to have the enforcement issues in your bill put in place, and we have told you again and again that we support those enforcement measures. What we don't support is that those women could find themselves completely cut off the plan because your plan under this bill is to stop collecting money when it costs you too much.

You have already said that 450 million outstanding dollars are going to be written off, and many of those dollars are owed to that group that has been trying for years and years to collect that money. Why don't you come clean and say that your bill is not just about enforcement, that it's enabling you to stop collecting dollars, $450 million, that are owed women like the women who run MAFIA?

Hon Mr Harnick: It defies logic to be able to stand up and say that they support the bill, yet in their motion this afternoon they're asking for the bill to be withdrawn. Let me tell you that MAFIA met with them, and here's what they say. They say to the leader of the third party: "While your party was in power, you gave us empty promises of passing effective and meaningful legislation to stop the abusive parents who neglected their responsibility to pay support to their children. Now you're in a position to ensure quick passage of this important legislation and you are failing us again."

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): That's $450 million you're going to write off, Charles. Gone.

The Speaker: Order, member for Sudbury East.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: According to

section 21(

a) of the standing orders, "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly.... "

Speaker, last Friday I received a fax in my office from the Ministry of the Attorney General over the signature of Abby Katz Starr, manager, issues and MPP liaison. This letter in part says, "As promised at the family support constituency briefings held Wednesday, November 20, and Thursday, November 21, here is the follow-up action."

I asked my staff if they had attended a constituency meeting. They said they knew nothing about it. So my staff called Abby Katz Starr and her answer, which I received today, was this: She blamed the mixup on temporary help. The letter we received was supposed to go to their caucus only.

Speaker, I think this smacks of partisanship in the extreme by withholding information with regard to briefings on a very important issue that's been raised for weeks in this House, and that is the family support plan. I feel my privilege has been breached and I would ask your assistance in this matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you for your help, the member for Ottawa Centre. Although I listened carefully to your point of privilege, it's a meeting that was organized outside of this place, and the involvement of people with respect to the bureaucracy and so on is not within the purview of the Speaker.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Review it.

The Speaker: No, no. I appreciate what you're saying but, once again, often the refrain from the Speaker's dais is that I have limited powers in this place and they really revolve around this building and the precinct itself. If a minister --

Interjections.

The Speaker: If a minister calls a meeting, it's a meeting called by the minister or the staff of the minister or whoever works in the ministry office. Again I say to the members opposite, it's not up to the Speaker to determine who can and can't call a meeting and who can and can't go. It's not the job of the Speaker. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr Crozier: Mr Speaker, just briefly and further on the same point of order: If I may refer to the standing orders, it says the "rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually." It doesn't say anything about whether it happens in this House or not. It says "members of the House." You're telling me, then, that a minister can brief caucus members of the government on an issue that involves tens of thousands of people in this province, in my riding and in other ridings, and there's absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

The Speaker: Yes, that's fundamentally what I'm saying.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

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

There are a number of signatures and I have attached mine as well.

ADULT EDUCATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition of about 300 signatures here from students from the Jones Avenue school, some of whom happen to be here today to hear me read their petition. It reads:

"We, the undersigned students of Jones Avenue school, believe the government's proposal to cut the educational budget will jeopardize our future. If Jones Avenue is closed or totally altered, we will have fewer opportunities to learn. If it results in larger classes, it means less individual attention for all the students. The learning effects will be diminished.

"If, as suggested, we are pushed to go to night school, that means we have fewer opportunities to learn as regular students. Also, night school is not secure for women. At night school the teachers and students may not have enough time to know each other.

I agree totally with this petition and will sign it myself.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition pertaining to the level of funding for adult day school credit courses signed by approximately 600 constituents from the Premier's riding of Nipissing. It appears to be in the standard form and I'm submitting it on their behalf today.

TAX REDUCTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

It's signed by a number of my constituents and I've added my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition that reads:

"This petition protests the nearly $1 billion the government plans to cut from Ontario's school budgets by November 1996. We call upon Premier Mike Harris and Education Minister John Snobelen to guarantee adequate funding for our schools so that our kids get the benefit of a quality education."

It is signed by 560 students from Roden Public School in my riding and I'm pleased to affix my signature to it.

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition forwarded from a representative of the employees of the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls.

We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced the downsizing initiatives as well as closure of first-rate community-based facilities for developmentally disabled adults; and

"Whereas Rideau Regional Centre is not an `institution' in the traditional sense and is a community in and of itself for those who reside there; and

"Whereas the care provided at Rideau Regional Centre is of a specialized nature requiring highly trained, skilled and dedicated staff; and

"Whereas these clients of Rideau Regional Centre have no desire to leave their home community to be repatriated and isolated in a community they have no relationship with; and

"Whereas the economy of Smiths Falls and area would be devastated by the downsizing and closure of Rideau Regional Centre;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, demand that the decision to downsize and close these facilities be revoked and that the clients of the Rideau Regional Centre be allowed to continue living with dignity, stability and without threat in the community they call their home."

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to it as well.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from Local 175 of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union on behalf of the 55 employees at the IGA in Bancroft where scabs are going across the legitimate picket line and splitting that community up in such a serious way. It's been forwarded to me, by the way, by Mike Fraser, the president of the local, and Wayne Hanley, the secretary-treasurer, as well as Bob Linton, their communications liaison. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 55 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 175, who are employed at the Bancroft IGA have been on strike since October 21, 1996, in an attempt to gain an fair and just collective agreement; and

"Whereas the employer has been found in violation on nine separate provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act and has failed to comply with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) directives; and

"Whereas UFCW Local 175 has filed a contempt of court motion with the Ontario Court of Justice in order to enforce compliance with the order of the OLRB; and

"Whereas the employer, who is also the immediate past chairman of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, has instituted the use of replacement workers; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario is witnessing growing labour unrest as a result of actions such as has been taken by the owner of the Bancroft IGA, in particular with the use of replacement workers;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to restore the ban on replacement workers and bring forth labour legislation that restores a fair and equitable balance between labour and management, which was contained in the previous NDP government's Bill 40."

On behalf of my caucus colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada."

I attach my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

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

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster eviction by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

I affix my signature, with the thousands of people who have signed this.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"That closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"That physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"That treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"That the Ontario Correctional Institute is a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques;

"That research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"That a therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Therefore, we urge you to save victims and money by keeping open what works."

This is a petition signed by about 200 --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you for the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the child care community of Prince Edward county, consisting of parents, guardians, child care providers, caregivers and members of organizations associated with children and child care wish to formally and respectfully respond to the 1996 Child Care Review;

"Whereas this same community applauds Janet Ecker, MPP, and her team for preparing, in consultation with a wide range of Ontarians, a thorough Child Care Review committed to developing a child care system which offers families a wide range of quality child care options which are accountable, affordable and accessible;

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

"To consider the response to the Child Care Review prepared by Prince Edward child care services and submitted to Gary Fox, MPP, which we have read and believe to contain certain proposed directions which may not serve to effectively meet the objectives established by the review."

I affix my signature to these 100-plus signatures.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm still receiving petitions against the $2 user fee for prescription drugs. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled on July 15, 1996; and

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and I am affixing my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned" -- there are literally hundreds of them from Sault Ste Marie, 829, who have signed this -- "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the legislation."

I signed my name to this.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Laughren from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 26th report.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Barrett from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr71,

An Act respecting the City of Kitchener and the City of Waterloo.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

OPPOSITION DAY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Hampton moved opposition day motion number 5:

Whereas Mike Harris and Charles Harnick promised to improve the family support program; and

Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that "Government should concentrate its efforts on tracking down `deadbeat' parents and enforcing payment orders"; and

Whereas the Ministry of the Attorney General closed all the family support plan regional offices and laid off 290 staff, in order to fund the government's tax giveaway to the wealthiest Ontarians; and

Whereas the closure of the family support plan's regional offices have caused hardship and suffering for women and children who were previously receiving regular payments; and

Whereas the cuts to the family support plan have eliminated community-based services; and

Whereas the loss of experienced staff and closing of the regional offices has thrown the family support plan into chaos; and

Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to provide better enforcement of support orders; and

Whereas the government has introduced legislation which will allow the director of family support to refuse to register an order or to close a file and will enable voluntary withdrawal from the family support plan;

Therefore this House calls upon the government to withdraw Bill 82 and guarantee that women and children who are entitled to family support payments promptly receive them and that all court-ordered family support payments be enforced by the province of Ontario. Attorney General.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): First of all, let me acknowledge a number of women and men who are here today from Kitchener-Waterloo, Hamilton, Burlington, Barrie and Toronto who asked that we bring this motion forward today because they are angry at what this government has done to the family support plan. They are angry that women and children across this province are not receiving family support because the government chose to lay off 290 staff and close the regional offices in order that the government could finance its tax scheme for the wealthy. I want to thank them for taking the time to be here with us today.

Let me come directly to the point. The government says that they want this bill, Bill 82, debated. They say they want it in a hurry. Well, the government should answer this: Bill 82 was introduced on October 2. How is it that it has taken the government this long to now bring Bill 82 forward?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Forty-nine days.

Mr Hampton: Forty-nine days. Can the government explain why Bill 79 was more important than this bill? Can the government explain why Bill 81 was more important than the family support plan? Those were the bills that were debated on October 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 15.

Can the government explain why Bill 75, dealing with video slot machines, dealing with organized crime's infiltration of video slot machines, can the government tell us why on October 17, 21 and 22, Bill 75 dealing with video slot machines was more important than the family support plan? And again on October 28.

Again, Bill 79 on October 29. And again on October 30, Bill 81 was more important than this bill dealing with the family support plan. Finally, Thursday, October 31, Bill 76, environmental approvals, was more important than the family support plan.

Again on November 4 and again on November 5, video slot machines were deemed more important than the family support plan. November 5, 6, 7 and 18, video slot machines were deemed more important by this government than the family support plan.

On Wednesday, November 20, we in the New Democratic caucus requested unanimous consent to debate Bill 82, the family responsibility bill, and the government turned it down. The government denied unanimous consent to deal with the family support plan and Bill 82, the family responsibility act.

The government needs to come clean. The government needs to answer the question: Why have they delayed bringing Bill 82 into the Legislature for 49 days? Why have they put video slot machines ahead of child support for women and children? Why did the government deny unanimous consent over three weeks ago to debate the family support plan, to debate the family responsibility bill, Bill 82? The government should answer for that.

I also want to come directly to another point. The fact is there are some good things in Bill 82, some things that we pressed for when were the government and we actively worked on, and there are some things that will help. But people better look at some of the other items in Bill 82. The fact of the matter is that if Bill 82 as it now stands is implemented by the government, it will weaken the collection of child support in a number of cases around this province. I want to explain why it will weaken it.

We want good enforcement of child and family support orders, but we are not in favour of legislation that would put women in a position where they could be coerced into opting out, that will put women in a situation where the director of the family support plan can simply close down a file or close down a case. We believe these things are wrong. We believe that those kinds of items which are in Bill 82 will weaken the position of women.

I want to deal with some of the other issues. As I pointed out, we don't think that allowing the director to refuse to enforce orders, allowing the director to close files, is in the best interests of women. We believe the government should take that out of Bill 82. We believe that putting women in a position where they can be coerced to opt out of the plan is wrong and that it puts women in a very vulnerable position to have that in legislation. We believe it is wrong for the legislation to contain clauses that provide for the implementation of user fees.

We don't think the government should be charging user fees of women and children to collect child support and we don't approve of clauses that provide for the privatization of the plan. We don't think private companies should be making money off the backs of women and children who are merely trying to collect their child support.

I want to be very clear with the government: You take back Bill 82 and take out these objectionable pieces of it, these very objectionable parts, and we'll be more than happy to pass Bill 82. We'll be more than happy to call for unanimous consent so the debate can begin and be wrapped up right away. But as long as these objectionable things are in this bill, as long as you put women in a vulnerable position, as long as you're going to collect user fees on the backs of women and children who are trying to collect child support, we're opposed to these measures and we find them very objectionable.

It is very important that people understand exactly what the government has done with the family support plan. Let's just look at some of the history. Prior to 1987-88, in all of those over 40 years of Conservative government, Conservatives never thought it was important for government to help women and children collect child support. When women and children came to Conservative governments and said, "We need help collecting child support," the Conservatives said: "That's not our business. You go collect it yourself."

It wasn't until there was an accord between the New Democrats and the Liberals that something was finally done to help women collect child support. In 1987-88, for the first time, $19.9 million was collected, and those numbers went up. In 1992-93, as Attorney General I brought in the family support plan program and the family support plan legislative changes. The amount of support collected jumped to $221.6 million. Something the Conservatives never wanted to we managed to use to collect $221.6 million for women and children. In 1993-94 it jumped to $297 million; in 1994-95 it jumped to $367 million collected for women and children.

The family support plan is not broken. The family support plan was collecting more money for women and children every year. In fact, if you look at the government's own business plan that was filed earlier this year, the government's own business plan noted that Ontario's family support plan was the most cost-effective way to collect child support in Canada. On a per-case basis, more money was being collected than anywhere else and, if you took the cost per case and measured it up with the amount of money that was being collected per case, it was the best plan anywhere.

But this government shut down that plan. It laid off 290 staff, it closed 11 regional offices and it put women and children across this province into a crisis. We have brought here since August

chapter and verse, day in, day out, the history of the chaos that was caused. Women who had received support payments consistently for four and five years suddenly stopped receiving child support cheques in August of this year, in September, in October, and now continuing into November.

It wasn't that the support payor stopped paying. In fact employers like Ontario Hydro, employers like Algoma Steel, employers like Canadian National Railway, were getting notices sent from the family support plan ordering them to deduct more and more money, when they had already deducted the money. The money had been deducted by the employers and had been sent to the no-longer-functioning family support plan and it was sitting there in a government bank account.

Instead of the government transferring that money to the women and children who need it and deserve it, this government was collecting that money in a bank account, was not distributing it, was incapable of distributing it, because they had shut down the plan. The very workers, the very regional offices that distributed that money were shut down, and they were shut down for one reason: so the government could find the money to finance their phoney tax scheme for their wealthy friends.

That's the history of what has gone on here. That is the history. So we have all kinds of cases across this province of women and children who had their power shut off because they weren't receiving their family support plan cheques in August, in September, in October, in November, who had their natural gas shut off, who had their phone disconnected, who were evicted from their apartments, who had to go to a food bank to get food. Why? Because this government shut down the family support plan; they wanted the money to finance their phoney tax scheme.

Their phoney tax scheme is more important to them than getting child support cheques to the women and children who are legally entitled to it and who need it. That's why this chaos was created.

A number of people in our caucus want to speak further to this bill, but I lay it on the line again: This government has to answer, why did it take them over 40 days to bring Bill 82 forward? Why was it more important to them to debate video slot machines than to debate child support payments for women and children? Why was it more important for them to debate Bill 81 than to debate and bring forward Bill 82 dealing with family support?

The government has to answer that and the government has to answer why, through this legislation, you are putting women and children in the most vulnerable positions. Why are you putting them in the position where it will be in a support payor's interest to coerce them out of the plan? Why are you putting them in that position? Why do you put in this legislation the provision to collect user fees on the backs of women and children? Why do you put in this legislation provisions to privatize the plan so that corporations can make money off the backs of women and children who are trying to collect child support? That's what you have to answer for.

You take those objectionable items out of this bill and we will be here whenever you want to pass it. We'll give unanimous consent. But, as it stands, this bill has several objectionable items that will hurt women and children.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is an important debate. That's obvious from the tone of our leader's comments with respect to this motion. There are a number of people who have come to this House today to observe this debate. One of those people is a young man, Arron Moore, who is sitting in the members' gallery right now. He came to Toronto with his mother from Barrie. Both he and she have a strong interest in this debate and in the issue.

The Acting Speaker: Could you get to your point of order, please?

Mr Kormos: Yes. This young man is a guest of mine in this Legislature. I've signed his pass. He has been denied access to this chamber because he's wearing a T-shirt that is emblazoned with the logo that as a matter of fact says, "Organize, Educate, Resist." You're well aware it's the logo from Days of Protest when people from all walks of life entered the streets of Toronto several weeks ago. He has been asked by security -- and I make no criticism of them; these are their instructions -- to remove his T-shirt and turn it inside out.

This is a very serious matter. A member of the public is being denied access to this chamber on a very arbitrary and, quite frankly, political basis. I'm calling upon you, Speaker, to direct the security staff to permit this young man into this chamber. He is not here to protest; he is not here to demonstrate; he is not here to engage in any inappropriate behaviour. He's wearing a piece of clothing which is quite normal, quite frankly, on the streets of Toronto or elsewhere in Ontario. I call upon you, Speaker, to direct that my guest to this chamber not be denied access to it as a result of a piece of clothing which in itself is not objectionable in any way, shape or form.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Another point of order on the same point.

The Acting Speaker: The same point of order. May I remind the members that --

Ms Lankin: That's their time then.

The Acting Speaker: Yes. I'm not going to stop the clock. This is time-allocated, so go ahead.

Mr Ruprecht: But it's important.

Ms Lankin: It's on our time. We've got speakers.

The Acting Speaker: On your point of order, I know it's general policy in this Legislature that demonstrations aren't allowed. However, I am going to rule that that's subjective, who determines whether a logo on a T-shirt is a demonstration or not. That's an open question, so I'm going to rule that this member be allowed in the Legislature to hear the debate.

Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I wish to respond to the presentation of the resolution by the leader of the third party. I must say that after the last question today was made by the former Attorney General, the member for London Centre, who commented that she supported the bill -- and yet the resolution now asks that the bill be withdrawn, although now the leader of the third party is saying, "Well, if you get rid of a couple of sections, we'll permit the bill to be voted on immediately."

I find it very strange, because this is a very unusual motion. I must say in my brief time, which has only been since 1990, I've never heard an opposition party make a resolution like this demanding that a bill be withdrawn. Maybe it has happened, but I don't recall it having happened. It's a very unusual step, particularly with the comments from the member who I believe is also the critic for the third party with respect to Bill 82. However, we will be proceeding to debate it. This, I think, is the fifth day that this time has been spent. We've spent three full days on it. We spent some time yesterday and now this is in effect another day on which we're debating this bill.

I believe that all members of this House will acknowledge that we have a very serious problem that really started on day one. I've stated this before and I'm going to state it again because I don't think I'm getting through to the members of the opposition, and the leader of the third party didn't refer to this. He talked about all the wonderful things he did when he was the Attorney General, but what he didn't say was that there still remain 8,000 pieces of correspondence per day coming into the system that have to be responded to, and 50,000 telephone calls are made per day, of which only 6% are answered.

This is under the system that the NDP and the Liberal accord developed. Their universal program increases a case load of 148,000 by 1,400 cases per day, notwithstanding the fact that responsible parents who do not need the program are required to be in the program.

The real problem in this province is that there is $1 billion in support payment arrears, of which one half is collectible. Only 23% of the cases are in full compliance. I don't know how the members of the third party, and to a certain extent the members of the Liberal Party, can say this system is working. The system is not working and it's never worked from day one: 77% of the cases are not in compliance and in a full 46% of the cases no payments are being made at all.

To say in the resolution that the Premier and the Attorney General promised to improve the family support plan, if you read the bill, if you read the enforcement provisions of this bill, which are going to be tougher than in any other jurisdiction in North America, I don't know how you can stand day after day and then finally, today, say this bill should be withdrawn. I don't know how in all honest conscience you can do that. To say that our government should concentrate its efforts on tracking down deadbeat parents and enforcing payment orders, that's exactly what this bill is going to do.

I stand in amazement at particularly the members of the third party who come here today and ask that this bill be withdrawn when the whole process cries out for a change. The decentralized system they speak of that they seem to be so proud of didn't work. I've listed off all the examples. Talk to anybody who's in the system, who is forced to be in the system, and you'll know in your own heart of hearts it can't work. It can't possibly work when you get 8,000 pieces of correspondence a day, 50,000 telephone calls a day and a machine, 6% of which are answered.

I honestly don't know how they can come here today and demand that the bill be withdrawn. Notwithstanding that I want to remind them, I want to go through some of the sections as to what this bill is going to do, the tough enforcement philosophy the process should have had from day one.

Part V of the bill talks about drivers' licences and motor vehicle permit suspension for defaulting payors. The reporting of cases to credit bureaus,

section 47; read that section. The permitting registration of support orders under the Personal Property Security Act; that's

section 43. The giving of support order arrears under the Creditors' Relief Act, the providing of better methods to trace and locate defaulting parents, the garnishment of joint bank accounts, the preventing of sheltering of assets, the seizure of lottery winnings of over $1,000 -- I've never heard one word from the members of the third party as to whether they support or reject those positions. They stand up day after day after day saying how the system isn't working. Of course it's not working. That's why we're going to change it.

I'd like to make a few comments with respect to some of the enforcement measures, specifically the driver's licence and motor vehicle permit suspension. Under these sections the director may direct the registrar of motor vehicles to suspend a payor's driver's licence or permit if he or she owes arrears in a support order. Payors are first given 30 days' notice and an opportunity to pay the arrears or enter into a payment arrangement with the director before the driver's licence or vehicle permit is suspended.

We believe this

section will bring some sense to those payors who are simply ignoring the court orders. The payor can apply to the court to make an order, preventing the program from suspending the licence if the individual is bearing the order. To limit delay tactics, any order preventing the program from suspending the driver's licence or vehicle permit will only be in effect for six months, with the possibility of an additional three-month extension. Why won't you agree to such a proposal as that? I don't know why you don't.

One more section, the reporting of cases to credit bureaus,

section 47. Defaulting payors continue to borrow money for their own purposes despite the fact that they're neglecting to pay child support. Under this section,

section 47, the program may report defaulting payors to consumer reporting agencies to ensure that support default is reflected in their credit rating, thereby impeding the ability of defaulters to add to their debt. Reporting of all cases to credit bureaus is one of the new tough enforcement measures that the Family Responsibility Office will administer. This is the second tough enforcement which I cannot understand why members of the third party won't support.

Section 43 talks of the Personal Property Security Act. Defaulting payors continue to borrow money for their own purposes, again despite the fact that they are neglecting child support. These new creditors, if registered under the Personal Property Security Act, have priority over child support arrears. Therefore, this section,

section 43, allows support orders to be registered as security under the Personal Property Security Act. In that way, when an asset is sold, the child support order will be given priority over subsequent registered interests and unregistered interests. This

section cries out to be passed today.

Another

section is

section 66, the amendment to the treatment of the arrears under the Creditors' Relief Act. The existing law as it stands now gives support arrears priority over other judgement creditors for only lump sum support arrears and for one year's worth of periodic support payments. Amendments to the Creditors' Relief Act under this bill will give priority to all support arrears over other judgement debts. This means that when a sheriff takes steps to collect on a support payor's judgement debts, support arrears will be paid first even if there are other judgement debts.

The final item, because there are other members from the government side who wish to make a presentation this afternoon with respect to this resolution, is better tracing and locating of default payors. Currently the family support plan has the authority to gain the address of a payor and the name and address of the employer. There is no ability under the current law to obtain financial information other than what the payor discloses. Without complete financial disclosure related to the payor, enforcement is therefore limited. This bill,

section 54 in particular, will provide better methods to trace and locate defaulting parents who cannot be found so that the program can take enforcement action to collect these amounts that are owing to the women and children of this province.

My time has expired, but I urge the members of the opposition, and particularly the members of the third party, to come to their senses and allow this bill to be passed. It cries out for passage.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am pleased to rise today to speak once again on the family support bill. It gives us an opportunity to speak about the whole concept of family support in the first place and what a disaster it's been currently, and in particular for the people of Windsor-Sandwich, where I come from.

There are few issues that tug at the heartstrings like those who are negatively impacted by changes that governments make, in particular when the government does it under the guise of doing something that is supposed to be helpful. I can tell you, as many of us who are sitting in this House now know, the changes made by this government in family support have been an absolute disaster for families not just in Windsor-Sandwich but across Ontario, including those represented by Conservative members.

Last week when we spoke to this bill during debate, there were members opposite who said they were not receiving any calls in their offices. We know today that this simply was not the case, that you were simply trying to show that while we may be trying to make political mileage out of this issue, you in fact as Conservative members in this House are not bringing forward information not only to this House but, as well, not bringing it forward to the Attorney General.

Because if you honestly feel you have a line to the Attorney General, you should have been on your feet in his office, where you could get in a lot quicker than I could, and telling them the kinds of problems that families were facing in your ridings. I will tell you that we knew that was happening in your ridings as well. For you to be silent on this issue is completely unacceptable if you are being representative here.

There are some members here who have dared to speak out, who have been asked by the press in your ridings and at that point have said, "Indeed we've had some trouble." I'd like to speak to those Conservative members today and say that we really do need your help; the families in Windsor need your help. If you feel you are going to somehow be influential so that you can break the logjam that is happening in the Attorney General's office, we sincerely need your help.

There are families out there who, while Christmas is drawing near, are simply not in a position because they do not have adequate funding -- not funding that is some sort of social assistance, which some members here have some trouble with, but money that is clearly and rightly theirs because of a court order. In many cases it is money that is truly theirs that parents who are not the custodial parent are trying to give to their children, and we are not managing to get this money through to them. I came into the House on several occasions with example after example of families like this in my riding.

We have Robert, who works in the mould industry in Windsor, who was in arrears at one time and so a huge amount was being taken off while he was able to catch up. Today, because of the change, because of the closure of the Windsor regional office, he has nowhere to go, nor has our office or our office staff been in a position to get through to make changes so that significant amount is still not coming off of his garnisheed wages. We have a woman named Ruth who is more than $5,000 in arrears.

I will tell you that in most of the cases with our families who are having trouble with the family support plan, these are not incidences where the families are particularly affluent, where they can afford waiting for thousands of dollars to come through because they've got some kind of nest egg somewhere. Unfortunately, that is not the case with most of the parents who are calling us. I can tell you that the desperation in their voices as we're speaking with them is something that would even galvanize you into action here.

We said last time that we truly believe that if this were being run as a business, the Attorney General for the government of Ontario would have lost his job a long time ago. We would have fired him if we'd had an opportunity to do so. His actions to date have been an absolute disaster.

When the decisions were being made to close the regional offices, I can honestly tell you that the Attorney General was presented with very sufficient documentation to prove that closing the regional offices was simply not going to be helpful, was not going to streamline. If they looked at any areas of the work of the regional offices, they could perhaps have looked at the financial side, where in Windsor, as the example, of 24 staff people, six people work in the area of finance.

If they could ever come to an agreement in use and training level of a new computer system to replace that kind of work, that could have been streamlined. But that certainly was no reason or logic to close the office down entirely. The same case can be made for Thunder Bay, for Hamilton, for Toronto. We certainly cannot understand why even today, after weeks and weeks of harping on case after case, the Attorney General today still has the nerve to stand in this House and say, "We