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

March 25, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L046 - Mon 25 Mar 1996 / Lun 25 Mar 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JENNIFER ROBINSON

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

LEARNING DISABILITIES MONTH

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

LEGISLATIVE AWARDS

ONTARIO BUSINESS

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS' COMMENTS / COMMENTAIRES DES DÉPUTÉS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

TAX REDUCTION

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

EDUCATION SURVEY

TAX REDUCTION

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

PINECREST HOME

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

EDUCATION POLICY

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

CHILD CARE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

TAX REDUCTION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

GLENORA-ADOPHUSTOWN FERRY SERVICE

RENT REGULATION

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

CORRECTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEZING OF COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 GELANT LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FREEZING OF COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 GELANT LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JENNIFER ROBINSON

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): This past weekend a very talented young woman from Windsor, Ontario, represented Canada at the international skating competition in Edmonton. Her name is Jennifer Robinson.

Jennifer made an outstanding contribution on behalf of her city and her province and her country, and all of us who share Windsor as a home town were especially proud. Young people like Jennifer are an excellent example to all young Canadians, and indeed all Canadians, that with willpower, perseverance and courage we too can become the very best at what we set our minds to do.

Jennifer Robinson inspired each and every one of us and continues to inspire each and every one of us, and I'm sure all members of the House join me today in congratulating Jennifer and thanking her for representing not only her city, but her province and her country on the international stage. She is a talented young woman with a bright future in her sport and is a great example of young people in this province and in this country and what they can achieve.

All of us in this House, and especially those of us from Windsor who have watched her career with great pride, salute her today: Jennifer Robinson, the Canadian champion in women's figure skating.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The Minister of Correctional Services knows, or he darned well ought to know by now, that over the course of this past weekend, especially on Friday night down at the Niagara Detention Centre, approximately a dozen of the correctional officers who had been working as essential workers felt compelled not to work their shift because of serious and legitimate health and safety concerns.

The Minister of Correctional Services knows as well that there has, over the past, been an increasingly hostile and poisoned environment being generated at the Niagara Detention Centre because of the abusive nature of management towards correctional officers. Indeed, this came to a peak in the first part of this month when a correctional officer was assaulted by a manager. Things are in a crisis situation there. The management is generating hostility among the inmates against the correctional officers, further jeopardizing those officers who, as essential workers, are attempting to maintain some peace and order in the detention centre environment.

It is imperative that the Minister of Correctional Services investigate this matter immediately. Management at the Niagara Detention Centre has clearly gotten out of hand. Management at the Niagara Detention Centre is clearly abusing its position. There are issues that have to be resolved, and I tell you, all hell is going to break loose if the Minister of Correctional Services doesn't attend to this promptly.

LEARNING DISABILITIES MONTH

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I rise today to inform my colleagues and the people of Ontario that we are in the midst of the silver anniversary of Learning Disabilities Month. Since 1971, learning disabilities have been recognized in the month of March.

A learning disability is a dysfunction of the central nervous system in an individual of potentially average to above average intelligence. A learning disability is a problem in processing information and is not related to an individual's intelligence. Learning disabilities are manifested in delays in the development of or difficulties in attention, memory, spelling, coordination, social competence or communication.

This invisible handicap affects almost 800,000 Ontarians. One of them is my own son, David, who was diagnosed with a learning disability many years ago but recently graduated from high school with excellent marks.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the efforts of the Learning Disabilities Association, which for the past quarter century has been raising awareness of this disability. I am sure that through their hard work, and with the cooperation of government, people affected by this disability will live easier and happier lives.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE DISPUTE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Referring to the rising temperatures around and on the OPSEU picket lines, Mike Harris has requested that people begin to act like adults in order that cooler heads may prevail. Harris should take his own advice or, at the very least, pass it on to some of the members of his caucus.

For his part, Harris has shown time and again that he will not pass up an opportunity to use abusive, belligerent and inflammatory language during the strike in order to score cheap political points. He has used hyperbole to suggest that the unions must not be allowed to hold the government hostage. He has referred to the actions of OPSEU during this strike as "bullying" and "dictating" and has said that he is prepared to choose picket line violence over having union leaders run the province. He's even described the right of OPSEU workers to strike as "forbidden candy."

The cavalier attitude that Harris has taken with respect to the strike and the OPSEU workers out on the picket line has shown that he is the one who needs to start acting like an adult and realize the seriousness of the situation. Instead, he's encouraging his caucus members to incite the line.

Just last week, Transportation minister Al Palladini showed that he is taking cues from the Premier when he used an opportunity in the House to criticize the action of OPSEU workers and attempt to blame them entirely for the poor winter road conditions during the strike.

It's time that Harris and his caucus started leading by example and began to cool down their own inflammatory rhetoric so that we can begin restoring some semblance of peace --

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

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the issue of the St Joseph's Hospital proposed closure in my riding and to point out the fact that one of the reasons the report is coming under fire in Hamilton is because of the shortened time frame that this government imposed on the task force. While they may not have made it an absolute rule that they had to, they made it very clear that they wanted the work that should have taken two years to be done in one year.

We believe that rush is in large part why we have a report that in many ways is not as accurate and as in-depth and does not take into account the sort of factors that it should, in addition to the fact that it's this government that has broken its promise on health care. This is the government that said, "Not one cent from health care," and has announced cuts from the $17.4 billion, breaking their election promise.

The Friends of St Joseph's continue to mount as much pressure as we can. This

article was in the Hamilton Spectator on the weekend. We had a meeting at Hamilton city hall with over 600 people recently. My colleague the member for Hamilton East, Dominic Agostino, was on his feet the other day raising this issue. The Tory backbencher the member for Wentworth North, Mr Toni Skarica, has sent a public letter indicating his support to keep St Joseph's open. I urge my other Tory colleagues to join with us in saving St Joseph's. Don't hide in the bushes. Come forward. Now is the time we all need to be there for our city.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired. Further statements? The member for Wentworth East.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Yes, sir, I've already come forward on that issue.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Lately there's been a tremendous amount of publicity surrounding the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Some parties have suggested that we have wavered in our commitment to this project. I welcome this opportunity to state unequivocally that our government has stood by this promise and shall continue to do so.

In a time when dollars are tight and where we are looking to spend the taxpayers' money in a smarter fashion, a firm $100-million commitment has been made. This pledge exists because the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and the rest of our caucus understand the economic importance of this issue to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth. This expressway will mean opportunity and growth to the region.

While there may be variations in the cost of different components of the road, one thing remains: The era of writing blank cheques has gone. Innovative ways of building must be sought out and indeed they are being examined.

I am confident that we are in a position to learn from other highway experiences, including Highway 407, and in the end find that we are in the good ground-breaking territory of creative and resourceful construction. Yet let me leave no doubts: The taxpayer will not pay twice. This means no tolls.

While going door to door during the campaign, I talked of our commitment towards the Red Hill Creek Expressway. In keeping with our promises, we will live up to this pledge and anyone with a message otherwise is forgetting that we have not wavered from our stand on this issue.

LEGISLATIVE AWARDS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): As tonight is Oscar night, it's once again time for us to recognize the best and the worst Queen's Park has to offer.

The Oscar for best performance by a golfer goes to Mike Harris for his continued portrayal of Ronald Reagan in The American President.

Former actor Dave Tsubouchi has finally earned an Oscar for his unforgettable performance in Mighty Tuna-Bity.

The Oscar for this year's most draconian piece of legislation goes to Mr Harris's Omnibus.

Despite a strong performance by Chris Stockwell, this year's Oscar for best performance in a non-supporting role goes to Morley Kells. Don't worry, Chris. I know you'll be winning it hands down next year.

Mr Speaker, your behind-the-scenes direction of The Casinos of Simcoe County has earned you not just an Oscar but a casino to boot.

Conservative stuntman Bill King, who gives new meaning to the words "beating the bushes," has also earned an Oscar. Nobody dives into character like Bill does.

Jim Wilson, who is never out of character, has the Oscar for his impersonation of Nixon.

Last but not least, the Newt Gingrich-Jesse Helms lifetime memorial achievement award goes to the entire Conservative caucus for their performance in Nonsense and Insensitivity.

ONTARIO BUSINESS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): This morning I had an opportunity to meet with students and staff of the Toronto School of Business in Timmins, and in that particular discussion we had with the students and staff there all of them agreed, as I think we all do in the assembly here, that the government has to work towards trying to find a way to balance a budget over a period of time. But at the same time they all agreed on one thing: They either said this government is moving far too fast and far too rigorously in trying to achieve that goal, or in some cases that they're moving in the wrong direction.

They see the government's direction as being overbearing as they see it as really being a confrontational agenda, one by which nobody really wins in the end, and they worry as students of business what it means to say to the business sector and what it means to say to the recovery of our economy when you have a government that's intent on hitting people over the head and trying to find confrontational ways to be able to achieve their aims.

They suggest there's a different approach. They can learn by the examples of what has happened in the private sector already. They can look at Kimberly-Clark, Algoma Steel and de Havilland Aircraft as good examples about how you can restructure so that there is a win-win in the end.

I spoke to a student this morning in fact who was at the Toronto School of Business. He was there because his employer, in doing the restructuring of the layoff, offered him an enhanced incentive to be able to leave the workplace, to return to school and to have enhanced severance. It was, I think, a positive means.

There are win-win examples out there we can learn from if the government decides to sit down and to follow the examples of others. They're not the first employer in Ontario to restructure. They should learn by what other people have done and try to come into the 21st century and be a bit more progressive in how they deal with their employees.

BRANTFORD GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): This past Friday, March 22, was a banner day for health care in Brantford, for a number of reasons. One of those reasons was the opening of Brantford's very first community cancer clinic. I'm very proud to stand here today and congratulate the Brantford General Hospital, its foundation, and of course the Brantford district health council for that achievement.

Although there was an approval process to go through with our government, this was an initiative that was identified as a priority by the hospital's board of governors and administration. It took nearly a decade to achieve, but they raised their own money, and did it in the face of some very difficult economic times in the province of Ontario.

This is exactly what our government means by "doing more with less," and it's exactly the type of initiative and determination that we encourage and applaud. They set an example for the rest of the province to follow.

Another of the reasons that it was a great day for Brantford's health care was that the hospital also launched the world's first multipurpose MAX, a state-of-the-art, high-tech X-ray machine developed in partnership with Toshiba's laboratories in Japan. The Brantford General Hospital is to be congratulated for both achievements.

I would also like to thank Health minister Jim Wilson for making the time to come down to Brantford to officially preside over both those events, as well as some of my other colleagues, David Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, Ed Doyle, the member for Wentworth East, and Toni Skarica, the member for Wentworth North.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to take the opportunity to introduce the pages joining us:

Sandy Adam, Cochrane South; Karl Baldauf, Lincoln; Katrina Bond, Niagara South; Tamara Chalmers, Prescott and Russell; Lindsay Chancey, Etobicoke West; Melissa Dobson, Brantford; Peter Doelman, Elgin; Jan-François Grabowiecki, Ottawa South; J.

David Hagedorn, Bruce; David Hamilton, Sudbury; Stephenie Harrison, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Sarah Hofstetter, Oxford; Kate Hutchison, London Centre; Adam Jakop, York South; Michael Kirton, Eglinton; Sheena Kivisto, Port Arthur; Craig Lariviere, Cambridge; Kelly McIntosh, Essex South; Nathaniel Miles, Wentworth East; Sarah Minchom, Simcoe West; Kristin O'Rourke, York Mills; Nathan Sutanto, Scarborough North; Ian Verheyden, Nepean; Justin Yan, Durham Centre. Welcome to our pages.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS / COMMENTAIRES DES DÉPUTÉS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm asking you to address this point of order, as you were not in the chair last Thursday when the event occurred. During the very day when we were celebrating the elimination of racism, an event occurred in this House which I think should be addressed by the Speaker, and it should be addressed quickly, to send out a message about appropriate conduct in this House.

We know there is a list of parliamentary language and we also know it is the responsibility of the Speaker to address issues that members feel very strongly about. During the debate, the member for Durham East and the member for Brant-Haldimand did something that I believe is not only conduct unbecoming a member of this House, but particularly on that day, when we were dealing with the elimination of racism and the creation of a more tolerant society and all of our speeches were responding to that.

When I reviewed the Hansard, I have to tell you, and I share this on behalf of those who saw on parliamentary television what occurred, the totally unacceptable behaviour of two members as they did two things: one was to deliberately mispronounce a member's name; and second, to make the unacceptable suggestion that a member change his name.

I come from a community, and I have personal family experience, where an aunt of mine was forced to change her name in order to be able to get a job in this province. Many members of my community were forced to change their names to more anglicized versions in order to be able to be accepted in our society.

In 1996, to have a suggestion from a member of the Conservative caucus that members in this House whose names we should know and if we don't know we should make a point of learning how to pronounce, to suggest that that member change his name, I believe, diminishes us all. That suggestion was brought about because one of the members of this House made fun of and deliberately distorted the name in a very, I think, nasty kind of way.

I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to check the Hansard, page 1,817, to call the members to order and to deal with this serious issue of parliamentary protocol. I feel very, very strongly that if we are to promote a tolerant society it must begin here in this House and that as members of the Legislature we must stand firm and strong and clear that name-calling and suggestions that someone change their name in order to be accepted are unacceptable. I ask you to rule on that and to set a standard in this House so that all members of this House will know what is acceptable conduct and what is unacceptable parliamentary conduct.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, if I might speak to the point of privilege or order --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. On a point of order or personal privilege, the member for Brant-Haldimand.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I've written this out so that it comes out exactly as what happened. I would like to clear up the events of last Thursday afternoon in this Legislature, events completely blown out of proportion and importance by the media. My statement to the member for Fort York was made in jest, prompted by my recollections of a standing joke I have with my constituency assistant, whose name is Sevenhuysen. When questioned by callers on how to spell or pronounce her name, she says, "Call me Smith."

My friend opposite had just ended a heated exchange and obviously was in no mood to be joked with. He retorted by calling me a subhuman racist. When we left the House that day, I spoke with the member opposite and commented that he may have been a little thin-skinned, to which he agreed and said, "I apologize for what I said."

I apologized on Thursday. However, because of the brouhaha surrounding this matter, I'd like to explain myself. As far as the subhuman element of criticism, I'll let people make up their own minds, but racist? In the past 15 years I've had upwards of 10 first nation teenaged boys as foster children. My eldest adopted son is French Canadian and Pennsylvania Dutch. My second adopted son is Hungarian. My third adopted son is black. My wife is black. As far as an ethnicist, I am not; as far as a racist, I'm a minority in my own home.

I think this has all been blown out of proportion. The two of us have apologized to each other, me to him in the House and he to I going out the door as friends.

The Speaker: I must say that last week I had heard some of it when I wasn't in the chair. I would advise members that if they would refer to one another by their ridings or their constituencies and not by their names, it would solve a lot of the problems we've had.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I rise on a note of personal observation here, personal privilege. The member for Oriole suggested in her remarks that I deliberately mispronounced the member's name, which is totally false. If she had been here, she would have understood. I want to correct the record that I did not deliberately mispronounce the member's name, and I am sure if I was to make a full comment, in fact there were no Liberals in the House at the time.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, if I might, I would like to join with the member for Oriole to make a few comments about the incidents last week. I thought that perhaps it wouldn't be necessary after listening to the two members, but I think the two members have reinforced that this needs to be addressed by the Speaker very clearly.

Whatever the motivation was of the two members -- and I'm not going to try to guess what they were thinking at the time; I don't know that anybody in this province could guess what the two members were thinking at the time -- I do think that we have had over the time that I've been a member incidents like this in the past. They've been very unhelpful and they've demonstrated clearly the lack of sensitivity of some members.

Whether the Conservative members who are involved in this like it or not, Ontario has changed in the last half-century, and this place has changed. The only way that the Legislature will operate in a mature way is if members show some sensitivity and some respect for other members in the Legislature. At the very least, the comments that were made by the two members in the House last week demonstrated gross insensitivity and a lack of respect for a member of the assembly.

Mr Speaker, I think that in addition to the comments that have been made on the record today, it would be appropriate for the members, instead of questioning everybody else's motivations --

Interjections.

Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, you can see by the interjections that there is a serious problem in this place.

I hope that the government House leader and the minister responsible, the Minister of Citizenship, who was quoted in the papers on the weekend as saying, "Maybe we should just, if this isn't raised in the House, let sleeping dogs lie" -- that's not how these matters are resolved. The only way these matters are resolved is through the leadership, of course, of the Speaker, rules that we have in this place and leadership from the government. The Premier and the minister must have discussions with their caucus members so this doesn't happen again.

I hope that the minister or the government House leader will go on the record now in condemning the comments that were made in this assembly last Thursday.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on the same point: Through you, to the members of the Legislative Assembly, I think the member for Brant-Haldimand issued an apology on Thursday and he's again reiterated that apology today. That would demonstrate to me that indeed he is sincere and sensitive about this issue. I understand the concerns that have been expressed by other members previous to me speaking on this particular point of order. I think that the member for Brant-Haldimand's life experiences speak for themselves.

I think that he does understand, if he didn't before, that these issues are extremely sensitive to the individuals concerned and I think that we should go on with the business of the House keeping that in mind.

The Speaker: Ministers' statements?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Same point of order?

The Speaker: On a new point of order? If it's on the same point, I'm not going to accept it. We have heard enough with regard to the points that have been raised by each party. We have heard the points from the House leader. We have heard the apologies. As far as I'm concerned, no more points on that issue.

M. Bisson : Point de privilège.

The Speaker: New point of order?

M. Bisson : J'aimerais seulement, pour le record, démontrer que moi aussi, comme M. Marchese, j'ai été insulté par des membres du gouvernement en changeant mon nom, pas seulement au comité mais aussi à l'Assemblée juste la semaine passée.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please. I have ruled on the point of order that has been raised by different members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, I understood what he said, and there are no more points of order on that subject. The member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I would just ask if you would kindly reconsider because of the importance of this issue. Is that possible?

M. Bisson: Monsieur le Président, j'ai fait un point d'ordre puis j'ai demandé que l'Assemblée m'écoute. Vous avez donné une décision de ne pas écouter ce que j'ai dit comme membre comme si vous n'avez même pas compris ce que j'essayais de dire.

J'ai dit avec toute sincérité qu'ici à l'Assemblée la semaine passée, et aussi dans les comités dans les dernières semaines, moi comme député francophone, franco-ontarien, je me suis fait appeler des noms par des membres conservateurs, pas mon nom donné, Bisson, mais un nom donné comme «Buffalo».

Comme membre, je veux dire ici aujourd'hui à l'Assemblée que vous avez, en tant que Président, la responsabilité d'assurer que les membres de cette Assemblée comprennent qu'il y a un respect qu'on doit se démontrer, mais aussi que les membres ont besoin de reconnaître qu'ici, on est supposé de montrer par exemple. On est des chefs de nos communautés et se démontrer comme ayant un manque de respect comme l'on a vu dans cette Assemblée jeudi de la semaine passée, avec mon collègue, et le manque de respect que j'ai eu moi-même comme député, n'est pas acceptable.

Je vous demande de donner de la manière la plus claire possible des directives aux membres de l'Assemblée de reconnaître que l'on n'est pas tous anglophones ici ; on est des Italiens, on est des francophones, on est des Polonais, du monde de différentes ethnies. On veut avoir le respect auquel on a droit comme législateurs ici à l'Assemblée.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to rise today to make the fourth in a series of important announcements about this government's reinvestment in kidney dialysis services. An additional four communities in the central-west region of the province -- Brantford, Stoney Creek, Oakville and Orangeville -- will be receiving an expansion of kidney dialysis services. This announcement translates into an additional 96 patients being able to access treatment closer to home.

This government is again demonstrating, with concrete action, our intention to find savings in the sealed health care envelope and to reinvest those savings into front-line services for patients.

Dialysis is a mechanical cleansing of the blood required by people with kidney failure who have not had a kidney transplant. Access to this life-giving treatment is being significantly improved in these communities for people who need it. We are committed to meeting the growing demand for dialysis and to making sure patients receive treatment as close to home as possible.

Almost 4,000 patients receive dialysis in Ontario. The number has been increasing by between 8% and 10% each year. Most recent information indicates this increase could jump to 15% in 1996. This government has acted to meet this growth by reinvesting $25 million into dialysis services.

Dialysis is but one of the announcements our government has made about reinvestments into front-line health care services. Other investments include cardiac surgery; measles immunizations for school-aged children; services for Ontario residents with acquired brain injuries; expanded emergency health services such as paramedic services, defibrillation and symptom relief medications; enhanced paramedic training; new MRI machines for the province; and emergency room coverage for underserviced areas through our $70-an-hour on-call emergency sessional fee for physicians in this province.

These are but a few of the meaningful improvements this government has already made to the health care system. Many more are to come. This government will continue to identify the savings in the health care envelope first, and then move quickly to reinvest these dollars back into the system.

This is the ironclad promise we made in the Common Sense Revolution: to maintain the $17.4-billion health care budget while meeting the priority needs of the people of this province.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): We greet the minister's statement today, which, as he says, is the fourth in a series of dialysis announcements, as something the people of the province had expected to have before the end of 1995.

The reason they had that expectation was because that's what the minister promised he would do. The proposal call went out in August. The end of the process was the end of September, and the minister promised communities across this province that the funds would flow, the decisions would be made and people would have greater access to dialysis services before the end of 1995.

We know there are communities that still haven't heard. My colleague Mr Cleary, the member for Cornwall, just last week sent a message to the minister that the people of Cornwall and the people in the Ottawa area have been waiting to hear what the minister is going to do to expand dialysis services in their community. A letter Mr Cleary received from dialysis patients and their families says, "My mother and others from Cornwall travel the rough roads three times a week in snowstorms, rain or shine," and these people have no choice, because they do not have dialysis services in their community.

I say to the minister, where are these dialysis services that he promised across this province? I believe it is cruel that people across the province have to wait while he doles out these announcements. He says he is reinvesting. Well, I'll tell you something: He has cut $1.3 billion from hospital services across this province. In Windsor alone, we know that full-time dialysis nurses are being laid off, and people are very concerned about what's going to be happening to those services.

We've heard that there are some part-time casual people being hired to fill in, but what people are telling us is that the state of dialysis services is very serious. I have a communication from the chief of dialysis services, the director of haemodialysis, at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, and he said: "An answer to whether they would allow us to go ahead with the new units was to come from the ministry at the end of December. We were then told mid-February, then mid-March. We still have not heard anything." This is from Dr Posen.

I say to the minister that political announcements are inappropriate when it comes to health services. Stand and make your announcement so that people across this province will know what they are going to receive and when they are going to receive it. Stop the cuts. Stop the cuts in services and look very, very carefully at making sure that everyone in this province has access to the services they need.

This is no laughing matter, Minister. There are communities across this province that believed you when you said they would have those announcements. Make those announcements today.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): To add to what my colleague has said, I find it amazing that this government chose to make all the cuts, $1.3 billion in one shot, back at the end of last year but, however, is now going to politically and conveniently hold out on making announcements to try to minimize the negative impact of hospital closures, of cutbacks.

In my own community, $24 million has been announced in cuts from this government to local hospitals. I can tell you that this government has not made $24 million in announcements in reinvesting that money in the community of Hamilton-Wentworth. The St Joseph's Hospital situation that we're facing today, which my colleague from Hamilton Centre spoke of earlier, is a classic example of the impact of health care cuts in Ontario: the hundreds of jobs that are going to be lost, the delay for surgery, the lineups that will occur as a result of these cuts.

What I ask this minister to do is come forward and make all your announcements at one shot. If you're going to stand by your philosophy that not one cent will be cut and that the same amount that has been taken out will be returned, then let us go community by community and make your $24-million announcement and reassure the people of Hamilton-Wentworth that the $24 million you've taken out of health care you're going to put back in.

But as long as this government continues to play with people's lives and continues to put the lives of people in jeopardy and continues to tell hospital workers, "We're not sure where your job stands" and will conveniently make announcements from time to time -- I think you're putting health care in Ontario in jeopardy; you're putting the health care system in jeopardy. Come clean. Tell the people of Ontario what you plan to do for the next 12 months and tell us where this is going from here. Stop playing politics with this very important issue.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I'm pleased, for the fourth time, to congratulate the Minister of Health on the expansion of kidney dialysis services in the province -- the fourth time for the same envelope of money, I must say. But we do welcome the expansion of this important service that was begun, I believe, by the Liberals when they were in office. That's why I found it a little breathtaking that the member for Oriole would say that there's no room for political statements on the expansion of health care services. But I seem to recall her having made a few in her day as well.

However, I must say that we do welcome this expansion of dialysis services. We certainly, as a government, expanded the dialysis services as well, and of course there's more to do. We all understand that.

I believe that while people will applaud this particular announcement, what is still causing a great deal of nervousness across the province, certainly in our caucus and in our party, is the fact that the cuts to health care that have been announced are so substantial -- $2 billion over three years and about $1.3 billion in the hospital sector alone of the health care system. So there's still a great deal to be done.

I must say that when the minister announced that the $17.4 billion is a sealed envelope -- which means, of course, that it will not dip below $17.4 billion this year, next year, the year after; the Premier has even indicated that it may rise above that -- a lot of us were somewhat cynical about the fact that it was sealed at $17.4 billion, but we were nervous that it might drop in the intervening years. But the minister is making it increasingly clear that he intends to keep that $17.4 billion at least every year during their first mandate -- you notice I didn't say first and last -- as a government. So we assume that will be the case.

I must say we will be watching very carefully to make sure that the Health budget is not bumped up by moving certain sections of the Ministry of Community and Social Services or Education or any other ministry over to the Ministry of Health. We shall be watching very carefully that the minister does not attempt to do that in order to pretend that health care services are indeed a sealed envelope of $17.4 billion.

Having said that, we welcome this expansion of the dialysis treatment across the province and we look forward to his next announcement. I hope that I'll be able to rise in my place and congratulate the minister once again on that same package.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to join with my colleague and acknowledge how much we appreciate the new investment in this area, but we need to point out the fact that the health policy of this government, in terms of its spending allocations, has sent quite a shock wave through a lot of communities like my own. We talk about St Joseph's Hospital closing; in large part, we think that's as a result of the $1.3 billion you've announced in hospital cuts.

A lot of people voted for this government believing them when they said, "Not one cent from health care," yet they announced $2 billion in cuts over three years, and they're trying to put forward the argument, "As long as we're back at $17.4 billion at the end of our term, we met our commitment." That is not the case. It's not accurate, and while you may think it's political fancy footwork, it's doing an awful lot of damage in communities like mine, where people are really concerned about St Joseph's Hospital, about the planning around how we deal with the new rationalized system, because you forced the local task force to shrink its time frame from two years to one year.

That's left us with a plan, quite frankly, that doesn't meet our community needs, yet this minister stands up, knowing that he has a good-news announcement -- and as a standalone item it is, but if he believes for one minute that's going to fool the people of Ontario into believing that you've kept your promise on health care, he's going to be sadly mistaken.

My colleague from Nickel Belt has talked about the fact that any shifting from other ministries of money into the Health budget is not going to work either. The fact of the matter is, Minister, you ran on a platform that said no cuts to health care, not one cent. You're breaking that promise every day and this little charade is not going to cover that off. People won't be fooled.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Premier. Mr Premier, just before the minister's statement, there was an exchange that took place in this House on points of order and points of personal privilege and it all had to do with events that took place in the House on Thursday between the member for Durham East, the member for Brant-Haldimand and the member for Fort York.

Mr Premier, the issues have been discussed, the apologies have been made, but I think there's a basic principle that has not been addressed, one that I think falls squarely on your shoulders. One of them is the comment that was made by the member for Brant-Haldimand that what he said was meant in fun, as if to ridicule someone because of their ethnicity, their religion, their culture is funny. The second statement was made by yourself, and I want to quote: "I think it was bad timing on everybody's part."

Mr Premier, could you tell me when it is going to be good timing for members to say the things that they did?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Never.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Premier, that was a very succinct answer that it is never appropriate, and I think that it's got to be conveyed to your members that they have to have this sensitivity. If this were something that happened in the heat of exchange, in the heat of debate, it would be regrettable and the apologies would be made. There may be some hard feelings, but hopefully people would see the error of their ways and correct it. But I should tell you that this isn't the first time it's happened and it isn't the first time that it's happened with the member for Durham East.

At a meeting on February 5, 1996, of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, members of our caucus were there and they heard the member for Durham East mock the accent of the member for Lake Nipigon by responding in an affected French accent. In another committee meeting he said that if the native peoples who were camped out in front of Queen's Park were in Ottawa, they would be made to pack up their teepees and go home.

Again, this shows a lack of sensitivity, a lack of compassion for people who have problems, who are finding it difficult to adjust and who want to express their concerns.

Mr Premier, again I ask you, as the leader of your party and as the political head of this province, do you not think that you have to make a special effort to make sure that the members of your caucus are cognizant of these differences and must in fact not only be tolerant but make sure that everybody in this province feels that they are part of it?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes. We accept our responsibility to not respond in kind, to set a higher standard, even than members of the opposition, and we will attempt to do that.

Mr Kwinter: I know that this is a difficult situation and I know that the Premier isn't very comfortable dealing with it, but we are dealing with the facts of life, we are dealing with a province whose composition has changed dramatically over the years and there is a great feeling of alienation by people who feel that somehow or other they are on the outside looking in and those who are on the inside are doing everything they can to keep them there.

I think it's imperative and I would again plead with you to let your ministers and your caucus know that they have to make sure in all of their dealings with the people that they convey to them that this is a province for all of the people, that opportunities are there for everyone, and regardless of your colour, your creed, your religion, you are going to have opportunities and not risk the mocking of those people who've been sent to legislate and to govern this province.

Hon Mr Harris: I accept the challenges, I accept the premises and I accept the responsibility. Yes, we have to be accountable. I'm sorry; I agree with everything you said. I said yes. You don't seem to want to accept yes. All of our members and all of our ministers are going to have to accept that in government we are looked at and under scrutiny more. We are going to have to accept that responsibility. It is a responsibility, it is an important one and I have asked our members, my staff, our ministers to accept that. We must set a higher standard. That is our goal and we'll do our very best.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is also to the Premier. It has to do with some comments you made on the weekend on television, on Focus Ontario, specifically on the tax cut. I think I'm quoting you here properly. When you were asked about your plans for proceeding with the tax cut, I think you said, "The people will say we kept our promise." The promise, as you know, was very specific. It couldn't have been clearer. This is the tax cut: If you're making $100,000, your tax cut is $3,740 a year and then you take part of the fair share health levy off.

You indicated during the campaign that your tax cut cost was $5 billion. I want to have you confirm what you said on the weekend, and that is that it is your government's intention to proceed with the tax cut as you promised in the Common Sense Revolution.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you're getting very close as we start into budget preparation. I said on the weekend that when the Minister of Finance delivers his budget, you, your leader, the members of the public and the media will say, "They kept their promise."

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that. Part of your answer on the weekend also was that

whereas you had said that you were going to cut $6 billion from expenditures, you actually ended up cutting $8 billion, roughly 33% more. You promised during the campaign that you would not touch a penny of health care, classroom education or law enforcement. All three of those promises have now been broken, because you are cutting $2 billion more out of the budget than you said during the campaign. It's increasingly clear that your Common Sense Revolution is not what you promised. The jobs are not there, and you promised you would not cut health care, classroom education or law enforcement.

The reason for all of that is because you are dedicated to a $5-billion tax cut. Even members of your own caucus, Premier, are beginning to raise legitimate concerns about it. Four thoughtful members of your caucus, individuals who I think have a lot of common sense, have indicated concerns about your proceeding with this tax cut.

The question is very simple, and this is what the people of Ontario want to know: If the deficit is such a huge problem, and you're asking OPSEU members out there to be faced with layoffs far greater than you said in the campaign, you're cutting health, you're cutting classroom education and law enforcement to fight the deficit, if the deficit fight is so crucial, how can we afford a $5-billion tax cut at the same time?

Hon Mr Harris: As the member I think indicated in his question, I had said on Focus Ontario that the Common Sense Revolution document and the financing documents that went with it, which you're privy to -- lots challenged them and lots disagreed with them; and lots in fact agreed with them -- laid out a number of premises. Based upon the spending that we were told of, that we were campaigning on, based upon the spending of the previous year and the estimates of the New Democratic Party going into the election, we indicated that in order to balance the budget we would have to reduce $6 billion of that spending.

After having taken office, as you'll recall, the Minister of Finance said there was a $4-billion discrepancy in the numbers that the NDP had out. We knew of the $2-billion discrepancy as far as the revenue goes and we had taken that into account. But the spending being $2 billion in excess was something we really had no way of getting a handle on until we took office. The minister realized that as soon as he took office in July. The $2-billion NDP cuts to get the spending back to where they said they were were implemented. They were difficult, as I said on Saturday, they were not without pain, but they were part of the NDP budget and reflected the numbers they gave us.

Once we got that back to where it should be and in balance, the Minister of Finance in November announced an additional, over the next two or three years, $6 billion of reductions on top of that. That's consistent with the Common Sense Revolution, and as I indicated Saturday, we're pretty much on track with that.

Mr Phillips: I think the people of Ontario are beginning to see how crazy your fiscal plan is, and here's the craziness of it: You are going to have to borrow $20 billion to pay for this tax cut. Nobody out there thinks it makes sense to borrow $20 billion. You are not going to balance the budget until March 31, 2001. Over that period of time you are going to give a tax cut of $20 billion, every penny of it borrowed. Can you explain the logic, the common sense in that point of having to borrow $20 billion to fund your annual $5-billion tax cut?

Hon Mr Harris: The only borrowing we're doing is to finance $10-billion deficits, $100 billion worth of debt run up by you and your party for the first five years, and then the New Democratic Party in the next five years. That is why we are borrowing money. Secondly, we have to cut some $6 billion in spending, $2 billion already reduced, so we can stop that $10-billion deficit, that $1 million an hour more than we take in. Why are we cutting taxes? We are cutting taxes so that we can be competitive --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Would you come to order, please. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: We are cutting taxes so that we can create jobs so that we can restore prosperity to the economy so that we can be competitive with other jurisdictions. I understand some other jurisdictions aren't happy with that because they don't want to see jobs leaving their provinces and coming to Ontario, or jobs staying here that were leaving, but I have to tell you that the fact of the matter is that tax cuts will create jobs, will help us meet our goal and will balance our budget in five years. I know you were going to --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: But at what price? The price is high unemployment. The price is people --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for St Catharines has been continuously out of order and I will not warn him again.

Hon Mr Harris: I might bring this answer to a conclusion by saying that --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been answered.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Premier as well. Mr Premier, last Tuesday afternoon in this House your Solicitor General clearly indicated that he knew complaints had been filed with the police services and the police complaints commission around the events of Monday, March 18.

Hansard tells us that he said, "At the police complaints commission, there are already, I understand, two complaints that are possibly filed; at least they've been filed with the police service and may be formally filed with the police complaints commission, and perhaps others will follow." In fact those two complaints were laid on the Monday afternoon and I understand that subsequent complaints have been laid.

Despite that, having apparently viewed the police videotapes because he is Solicitor General and responsible for the police, and with the knowledge the complaints had been filed in front of the police complaints commission, he said on his way into your cabinet meeting, and I quote from a tape that was done of that conversation:

"I think they" -- meaning the picketers -- "were given fair warning. I think the tape indicates they were given fair warning and that the picket lines broke down. I think there was a breakdown in control by the picket captains and in fact I understand there were even physical altercations between picket captains along the line. I think it indicates that certainly the warnings were delivered in a variety of fashions, through megaphones, through the tapping on shields; those kinds of things occurred."

He went on to give a number of other comments about being sure, having watched the tapes, that in fact the police behaved appropriately. Now, the Solicitor General was clearly aware of this and clearly he had access to confidential information as Solicitor General, which neither the members of the Legislature nor the public has had access to, and he used that information, I suggest, in a very inappropriate manner.

The Solicitor General must remain impartial regarding police actions, especially since he knew complaints had been laid. He has clearly prejudged and predetermined the outcome of the complaints before the Police Complaints Board, and any further complaints that may be laid.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would you put your question, please.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Premier, why is the Solicitor General continuing to speak out and defend the OPP's action when there is an investigation under way by the police complaints commission?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The minister may at some point wish to respond, and if he does, he can by way of supplementary. The police are holding I guess what you would call an arm's length or public inquiry into their actions by calling the police complaints commission. We have agreed to a full public inquiry into all of the events of the day and, as the minister and the House leader have said, somehow or other people don't want to accept yes for an answer. We'll have a full look at all the actions and responsibility that were there, and I don't know what more the member wants.

Mrs Boyd: This issue has nothing to do with the public inquiry, which we support. It has to do with the inappropriate action of a minister of this government, a minister whose responsibility clearly is the protection of all Ontarians, not just the OPP but also all those people on the pickets and anyone else who requires service and protection from police services.

On Wednesday, after those complaints had been laid with the police complaints commission, the Solicitor General went on to say, "As we know, the problems that occurred on Monday were not with OPSEU but with a variety of folks who were involved: the coalition against poverty, the Steelworkers, a whole range of organizations who were out there who had nothing whatsoever to do with OPSEU."

Now, we have the Solicitor General of this province acting as the judge and the jury of the events that took place here at Queen's Park, events that your government has called a public inquiry into and for which there were already complaints in front of the police complaints commission. We've heard him make excuses, we've hear him try to justify the actions of the OPP, and now he even goes so far as to blame others for what happened on Monday.

The Solicitor General clearly knew he shouldn't be commenting on an issue before the police complaints commissioner that morning. He said and I quote again: "Well, I don't want to say anything publicly. I'm going to let everyone reach their own conclusions." But, Mr Premier, he didn't. He defended the OPP's actions and he blamed others.

As the Solicitor General, he has an obligation to remain impartial, and he's clearly crossed the line. He's clearly forgone his impartiality as Solicitor General. Mr Premier, since the Solicitor General has clearly jeopardized the investigation before the police complaints commission by his comments, you have a responsibility to the people of this province to ask for his resignation as Solicitor General. Will you do so?

Hon Mr Harris: The member is probably more learned in the law than I am, but I have not heard one single person involved with the independent inquiry suggest that anything has been compromised. I'm not familiar with what the Solicitor General has said or not said. If you wish to ask him directly, I'm sure he'd be happy to respond. We're going to have a full, independent, public inquiry into the actions, so I've seen nothing that causes me -- if you have information otherwise, you could ask the Solicitor General directly -- to question the competence of the Solicitor General.

Mrs Boyd: I'm surprised that the Premier didn't hear all the calls for the resignation of the Solicitor General. There was certainly enough noise around here this morning and in front of the Solicitor General's office around requiring him to resign over his behaviour. The Solicitor General's comments have destroyed his credibility, his integrity and his impartiality. The Solicitor General is not supposed to be the chief cheerleader for the Ontario Provincial Police. He's supposed to ensure that the OPP protect the safety of all Ontarians, and that includes people who are exercising their democratic rights on a picket line.

The Solicitor General must remain impartial at all times. The Solicitor General knew complaints had been laid, yet he continued to prejudge and predetermine the ruling of the police complaints commissioner. Your Solicitor General has clearly crossed the line. He must resign. You have no choice, Mr Premier, but to ask for his resignation, and I ask you to do so now.

Hon Mr Harris: I have not seen or heard anything. I understand that Gord Wilson has asked me to do some things. He's asked me to do lots of things that I've politely declined to do in the past. I understand that there are some others, and now you're asking me to do something which I respectfully and politely decline to do.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier as well. The Premier said this past weekend that all of his critics are wrong. He said there is no need to make any more cuts. He said the expenditure cuts that have been made so far are all that is necessary to finance his tax cut.

The Minister of Finance, in the November 29 economic statement, says something quite different. He outlines cuts that annualize to $8 billion. They include three years of cuts to hospitals, two years to municipalities, but only one year for education. The November 29 economic statement is clear that more will be cut from education and that transfer reductions will be announced next year. The Minister of Education, in his press release of March 6, advised boards to expect further savings targets to transfer payments next year. In other words, both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education are saying there are more cuts coming in education.

I'd like to ask the Premier who is right. Are you right that there are no more cuts coming in education, or are the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education right? Which is it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The member premises the question by saying that I said there are no further cuts required to finance the tax cut. There are no cuts at all required to finance the tax cut -- none whatsoever. There are none whatsoever.

The tax cut, over the five-year term -- and it is a five-year program that we laid out and a five-year program we plan to implement -- the tax cut over five years will finance itself. We stand by that: We campaigned on that and we are repeating that today.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Welland-Thorold is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: That means that all of the expenditure reductions, whether you have a tax cut or not, are required to stop this $1 million an hour more that we're spending, in order to stop the $10-billion and $12-billion deficits that have been ignored --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: Quite frankly, as I indicated as well --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am sitting six desks from the Premier. Every question that he's answered this afternoon I have not been able to hear. I ask you to start removing those members who do not wish to abide by the rules of this House, which do not permit interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, continue.

Hon Mr Harris: As I indicated, it's difficult to project a year out, two years out, three years out, four years out. As you know, your Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, and Premier tried to predict two months out before the election and you were out $4 billion. I don't think we'll be out anything like that. So far we're right on with 1994, but I have to tell you, two years from now, a year from now, three years from now, there could be other projections.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Lake Nipigon, I will not warn you again. You've consistently been interrupting and I won't warn you again.

Mr Hampton: I think it's pretty clear that the Premier may have been a teacher but he didn't teach math.

So let me try again. Another example: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs said in a speech to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association on February 21 that he will be required to make additional 30% to 35% reductions in the Ministry of Agriculture spending, something like $156 million. There's no mistake about this. He recounted the $13.1 million that's already been taken out of the Ministry of Agriculture budget and then went on to say a cut of 30% or 35%, about $156 million further.

Is the Premier now saying that this $156-million cut from Agriculture is not required, that this cut is not going to happen?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the same member asked the same question last week, and perhaps his support in rural Ontario is lagging for the leadership. I don't know. But if he wants to get the answer again today, I'd be happy, because the Minister of Agriculture is off promoting our products where our farm community is doing very well.

To date I think you would have seen an enrichment of a number of programs we have committed to in agriculture. Yes, we're looking at streamlining some of the administrative costs, but so far on the program side --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: -- in 80%, 85% I think of some of the support programs, you've seen a strengthening of the recognition of agriculture.

As the Minister of Agriculture said when he answered the question last week, if you want information on the budget, wait until the budget comes out, and I think I said as well that those members of rural caucuses and farmers and rural Ontario will say, "By golly, this is a good budget for us."

Mr Hampton: This is not about what the Minister of Agriculture may be saying wherever he is today. This is about what the Premier said Friday and Saturday on an open-line radio show and on Focus Ontario. He said, "No more cuts are necessary."

It's pretty clear to everybody else. It may not be clear to the Premier's arithmetic. It's pretty clear that health care is being cut in this province, education is being cut in this province, law enforcement is being cut and agriculture is being cut. Meanwhile, the Premier proposes to offer up a large tax cut to his already wealthy friends.

Now, is he saying that these two things are totally unrelated? It's clear to everybody else that money is being taken from ordinary people and given to those who are already well off. Are there going to be more cuts or are there not going to be more cuts? Which is it, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I think, for those who watched the show, and clearly you've at least been briefed on it, that you would understand that I said the minister had cut $2 billion to correct your overspending -- that was the NDP cuts of $2 billion in July -- and he had announced that we were working on business plans to reduce another $6 billion in spending -- all of this required to get the $10-billion or $12-billion deficit under control and balance our books. So within, there are still announcements to be made, obviously, on the $6 billion of reductions. We're working through the business plans.

If all of the parameters stay the same, we feel at this point in time that those would be the amount of reductions that will be required.

That is what I said on Saturday night and that is what I indicated, and that's what I'm happy to repeat today to the member. But let me reiterate that the tax cut has absolutely nothing to do with -- this is for jobs. This is how we --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: -- to put confidence back in and ultimately, just as you hiked taxes, cost the treasury money, cost jobs and put more people on unemployment and put more people on welfare, our tax cut will stimulate the economy, create jobs, take more people off welfare, reduce the unemployment levels, and ultimately will increase the dollars back to the treasury. That's how it works and that's what we will do.

EDUCATION SURVEY

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I'd like to ask the minister about what I consider to be a really very serious matter that has been going on inside his ministry for the past several months. I refer, of course, to the so-called push poll which his ministry has commissioned.

This poll is a different way of doing a focus group. It's a type of poll, though, that is designed to deliberately provoke a negative response towards Ontario teachers. I'd like to give you an example. One of the questions is: "High school students spend five hours per day in the class and teachers spend 3.5 hours. Is this fair?"

It's quite clear that this kind of poll is a way in which you can find a scapegoat, a way you can justify cuts from education, which we believe will amount to over $1 billion shortly. But what worries me is the method being used, and I believe there's a pattern here.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt last Wednesday asked a question and it had to do with the intimidation of a secondary school --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would you put your question, please.

Mr Patten: -- or a principal from his riding. Minister, when will you release the poll results, including all the questions? On March 6 when you were scrummed when you released your so-called toolkit -- it was really a money grab -- you said you would be releasing the results in the Legislature. Minister, when will you release those questions in that poll?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I am surprised that the member opposite assumes that the people of Ontario don't like teachers. I think quite the opposite. I think the people of Ontario support classroom teachers.

This government and this minister and I'm sure all the ministers in this government make every attempt to be in contact with the people of Ontario. From September through to this day, I've spent about 25% of my time in the classroom talking to students, talking to parents, talking to the teachers across this province, to stay in contact with people who are involved in the education system.

This government, like governments before, from time to time will go sample public opinion to find out how the public feels about their education system and other important issues of the day.

Mr Patten: The minister is afraid to answer the question. He made a commitment to share the information with this House. I'm asking a simple question: When will you release it? I will also ask you, did your office or any other political office have anything to do with the commissioning of this particular poll?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sure the member opposite knows that polls conducted by a ministry -- and there was a poll recently conducted by my ministry to test public opinion about the education system in the province of Ontario. We think that's important. We think it's important to meet the needs of the people of Ontario. Those polls are traditionally tabled in this House --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole is out of order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: As the member opposite knows, just before the House broke I tabled the results of a poll made by the former government. This is a normal part of the House.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question is to the Premier. In regard to comments he made over the weekend, headlined in the Toronto Star as "Only Cut in May Budget Will Be to Income Tax," he's quoted as saying, "Quite frankly," they were very "spot on," is the term he used in terms of their spending cuts.

The Premier has said repeatedly that the tax cut is about stimulating the economy, growing the economy, that spending cuts are about deficit reduction and that they're not connected. Yet last week the Premier admitted in a response to one of my questions that the tax cut will delay balancing the budget.

We see other comments by other Conservatives over the weekend expressing some nervousness about this approach and the fact that these two things are not connected. People generally see that the tax cut is related to the spending reductions. Specifically, the member for Wellington described the $5-billion tax cut as "reckless" in a letter to the Premier. In response, the Premier has basically said the other people who disagree with his view are simply wrong.

Mr Premier, my question is: How are they wrong? Is the member for Wellington wrong? And when every economist we've asked agrees that a tax cut will cost at least $5 million on an annualized basis, how is it the people are wrong when they say that you have to cut spending in order to finance the tax cut?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think on Saturday one of the people they quoted was Ralph Klein. Ralph Klein had wondered whether we should be cutting taxes. If I had the tax rates of Alberta, I wouldn't have to cut taxes. You see, they're the lowest in the land.

Quite frankly, I understand other provinces, which have been benefiting with jobs moving to New Brunswick and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Alberta out of Ontario --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): When are you going to find oil?

Hon Mr Harris: I understand them getting a little nervous with Ontario getting its act together and Ontario getting its taxation rates together, getting its finances together, becoming a more attractive place to invest and create jobs. I understand that. There is a competition, it is a global competition, but it is a competition within Canada as well.

Mr Pouliot: When are you going to find oil?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order, the member for Lake Nipigon. I'll have to name the member. I would ask him to leave the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I warned him, the member for Lake Nipigon. I'm not putting up with it.

Mr Pouliot left the chamber.

Hon Mr Harris: We campaigned and continue to govern on a five-year plan to balance the budget, to restore hope and prosperity and jobs and growth to the province. Some want to look at a one-day snapshot. We reduced and rationalized some efficiencies in health care on one day so we could respend it the next day.

All we're saying is that our commitment was a five-year commitment. Over the five years we will honour our commitment to the taxpayers, we'll honour our commitment to balance the budget and we will honour our commitment to make Ontario a much more responsive, friendly place to invest and do business. That's the commitment that we made and that's the program that we are implementing.

I might add --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

Hon Mr Harris: -- the NDP, who campaigned on the Agenda for People --

The Speaker: Order. Cut him off.

Mr Wildman: The question did not relate to the Premier of Alberta. It related to the comments made by members of the Conservative caucus in this place. The member for Wellington and also, I believe, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, who supported him, are the ones who are becoming nervous, along with many people in this province, not just the Premier of Alberta.

They're not talking about the situation in Alberta. They're talking about the situation here in Ontario. The Premier blithely goes on separating somehow the spending cuts from the tax cut, when everyone else understands, including members of his own caucus, that they're all part of the same budget and they're related to one another.

The government says it will have to cut more, at least $5 billion more, in order to balance the budget and to give the tax break at the same time. Basically, the Premier is asking the people of Ontario to take a great ideological leap of faith to believe that somehow consumer confidence will increase and that we'll have more jobs with that.

Any conservative econometric analysis would indicate that in order to implement your tax cut at $5 billion more, it will result in a loss of about 145,000 to 175,000 jobs -- that's your spending cuts to finance that tax cut -- and at the very most, the tax cut in itself will create 50,000 new jobs. That's a difference of 95,000 to 125,000 jobs. Aren't those the real figures, and aren't we going to see a net loss of jobs as a result of your ideological commitment to the tax cut?

Hon Mr Harris: No. Any net loss of jobs is to correct the overspending of the last 10 years and the financing of jobs that we clearly can't afford. There may be some streamlining. If we can deliver services more effectively at less cost, I would assume that you would want us to do that. As I've indicated, the tax cut is designed to stimulate the economy, to create jobs and ultimately, as it works its way through the system, to create more consumer spending, more sales taxes, more income taxes. Quite frankly, it will benefit the federal government too, as they will get more money out of Ontario.

I am happy to address, if the member wishes, the comments that were made. I think the member for Grey-Owen Sound said all members have the right to represent their constituents and represent their views. I respect members who do so, as did the member for Wellington, and I respect the member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Surely, for all members -- unlike former governments, that tried to stifle backbenchers and tried to stifle constituents -- it is appropriate that if some constituent in their riding comes in and expresses a concern brought out about the misrepresentation of the tax cut by those who are opposed to cutting taxes, the Liberals and the NDP, they ought to have the right to express that viewpoint, and I respect that.

The Speaker: The Chair of Management Board has an answer to a previously asked question.

CLEANING SERVICES CONTRACT

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm rising in response to a question that was posed to me by the member for Hamilton Centre last Thursday about tabling material associated with the janitorial services, the bidding process at Queen's Park. I'm doing that today, and the material is coming in.

There were strong allegations of lack of propriety of the tender process. I will say that I've investigated and found the following: that there were in fact five independent Ontario Realty Corp staff who did evaluate the bids; there was a point system which was established based on price, work plan and quality assurance; the winning firm achieved 91 points, the second-place firm 78 points, and the other firms which bid, below that. There were no irregularities; it was a completely proper process that was followed, an arm's-length process that was followed.

Thirteen firms prequalified successfully, including the final successful bidder, and five actually did bid on the job. As a result of the acceptance of this tender, there will be a saving, over two years, of $2.4 million to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Also, in wrapping up, if I'm allowed to wrap up, what I will say is that there was some question of a relationship between an individual named by the member for Hamilton Centre and myself. An individual did contact me under the letterhead of a Scarborough firm. I had no contemplation that this person lived within my riding.

The person himself is quoted in the Toronto Sun as saying we have never talked, and I firmly believe that to be the case. I will say it's one of the ironies of this situation that this individual, who I wouldn't know if he walked into the House at the present time, was a candidate for a federal nomination in the riding of Don Valley East in 1992 for the Liberal Party. Finally, the same individual was a former member of the Don Mills Liberal Association.

I would say an apology is owed to this individual, to the Ontario Realty Corp staff and to the winning company.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It would seem to me that if there are any apologies due, it's from this government to those workers who have lost their jobs so that you can pay for your tax cut. The minister will know that I made no direct allegations; I was very careful not to. I was inquiring on information I had and I continue to inquire. But if the minister thinks for one minute that he should take great pride in the fact that he saved $2.4 million of taxpayers' money by laying off some other taxpayers, he's got a surprise coming.

That's not what people are looking for when they look for fiscal responsibility. You ought to be ashamed for even thinking that laying off those hardworking men and women is a way to balance our budget.

I want to say to the minister that there still remains the question -- and I accept that he's tabled all the documents and I intend to look through them and review it, because there still remains the question of how it is that out of five bids the four that were not spoken to by the union were not part of the discussions we had here the other day. My question to you is this: Why is it that the four tenderers that did not agree to accept the collective agreement were the ones that were not chosen?

The only one chosen was the one bid that did not offer directly to the union to respect its collective agreement and respect the union. That remains a question that I think in all fairness deserves to be answered.

Hon David Johnson: This firm in fact has talked to the union on three occasions, number one.

Interjection: How does he get away with it?

Hon David Johnson: I don't know how he gets away with it.

Number two, one of the reasons that this firm scored highly was because it had the best bid in terms of keeping the current staff and it awarded highest in that category of keeping the current staff.

Finally, the member has said he has not made any accusations. I quote Hansard. I quote the member for Hamilton Centre. He said, "...what your relationship was with Mr Iordanous, and by you, I also mean your staff, because basically what you're doing is calling someone a liar. Either Mr Ferens is lying or Mr Iordanous is lying or you are," meaning myself. Now, if that isn't an accusation of a lack of proper procedure, I don't know what is.

I think there should be an apology to the firm in question, to Mr Iordanous, who had mud slung at him, and to the ORC staff, who I might say are very concerned because basically what is being said is that they haven't followed proper procedure. Will we have an apology from this member?

PINECREST HOME

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you're aware, Pinecrest Home in my riding is experiencing a funding dilemma brought about by the recent arbitration award to the home for the aged's employees. As a result of the December 1995 arbitration award, there exists a $1.8-million shortfall in funding for this home. I am told that any shortfall will have to be found at the municipal level which, you are aware, is not realistic, noting the transfer reductions to municipalities.

You will also know that the recent arbitration award makes this issue a most unique situation in the province and must be dealt with by you and your government. Clearly, the fate of this home's future is in your hands, and the people who rely on Pinecrest Home in my riding are looking for an answer. What action are you prepared to take to ensure the viability of Pinecrest Home?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): This matter was brought to my attention some time ago, and I would just remind the honourable member that the Ministry of Health has no say in a decision between a home and its employees and an arbitrator's decision in that regard. We did, however, support the government's provision in Bill 26 to ensure that arbitrators in the future take into account the employer's ability to pay.

At this time, we are worried about maintaining quality and standards in that home. Ministry staff have had discussions with Pinecrest to make sure, with the funding shortfall or with the pressure from the arbitrator's award, that quality will not suffer and that the residents of that home receive the top quality they're entitled to in this province. However, at this time we don't have the dollars available to Pinecrest to help them with the arbitration award.

Mr Miclash: You talk about the future; I'm talking about a situation that is presently in my riding. I have families out there, I have residents out there looking for help from your government. What are you saying in terms of the board's request for a one-time grant to help them through this dilemma that they face?

Hon Mr Wilson: The home did recently submit a new operating plan to the ministry. It contains savings in administration and other operating measures which should help to alleviate the pressure created by the arbitrator's award. Staff is currently reviewing that operating plan, and we'll be getting back to his constituents and the operators of the home in the near future.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Premier. Premier, in the interview that you gave on the weekend on Robert Fisher's Focus Ontario, you were asked a question regarding successor rights and the role they're playing in the OPSEU strike. Your answer to Paula Todd of the Toronto Star was, "They were given by the NDP." We all know that any legislation or policy, whether it's good for Ontario or bad, if it had NDP fingerprints on it, that's as good as the kiss of death.

Given the fact that I'm sure your staff have since advised you that indeed successor rights were put in place in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, that part of which was enacted in the 1970s, I would ask you, is it that you don't understand the circumstances around one of the key issues in the OPSEU strike, or were you deliberately trying to mislead the people of Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me be careful on the one hand in trying to respond on the other. The blackout is still on. We're at the table. We're trying to resolve a very difficult situation that's there.

I had indicated -- there may have been some confusion and I talked to the media about this afterwards -- that there was a succession of governments in a number of areas, in Ottawa and in Ontario, that had never contemplated that the public sector would ever have to downsize, that we were immune to that -- that somehow you could go on running up deficits, spending money.

Where the private sector had a number of negotiated agreements dealing with successor rights, also within their contracts was a vehicle where ultimately, at the end of the day, they could actually downsize without having to wait five or 10 or 15 years. This was not the case. So I indicated that the federal government had brought forward legislation to deal with that, and so had we.

I also indicated on Saturday night that it was our goal, and I don't know where the negotiations are at, but in general terms, it is our goal to be as fair and as reasonable as we possibly can with all of our OPSEU workers and non-OPSEU employees of the government of Ontario who may, if attrition is not satisfactory or if a number of other areas that we believe -- retraining and education and some of the other provisions are there, that if there actually have to be layoffs, that we treat those employees with dignity and with fairness. That's what I indicated on Saturday.

Mr Christopherson: I think that for the tens of thousands of OPSEU members who are on strike, they're going to find it very distressing to realize that the Premier who took away their successor rights in Bill 7 didn't even understand when those rights came into being and thought it was one of the NDP lightning rods that he had to go after.

The fact of the matter is that not only did the Premier not understand Saturday night the issue of successor rights and when they became law and who brought them in, he did not talk about taking away successor rights in the election campaign. The Premier and his party did not put in the Common Sense Revolution any comment about taking away the rights of public sector workers with regard to successor rights.

Further to that, Bill 7 -- which was not an amendment to the Ontario Labour Relations Act; it was a complete replacement -- when it was rammed through the House with absolutely no public hearings which you have to account for, you left tens of thousands of people without rights that they've had for decades and you had no mandate to do it.

We said at that time that functioning in that fashion, taking away those rights, not allowing fair, democratic procedures to take place, would lead to serious trouble, and look what's happening on our streets now. Premier, we say again, this is only the beginning and it's only people responding to you attacking them. When will you realize that Bill 7 and all that it does in taking away the rights of workers and the way you rammed it through in that undemocratic fashion is going to continue to make our streets what you've already made them? That can't be good for working people, it can't be good for the government and it's certainly not good for investment.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): What is your question?

Mr Christopherson: My question is, Premier: When will you realize the damage and havoc that Bill 7 is wreaking and put amendments on the floor and put real dignity and fairness and democracy back into labour laws in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: I think dignity and fairness will come with adults negotiating at the negotiating table. That's what we are doing, that's what David Johnson is doing and I believe that you will see that by correcting problems of the past, balancing labour legislation, the $10 billion to $12 billion that you spent you didn't have, the people you hired you had no money to hire, bigger government, government taking on more than it was capable of doing -- correcting this is not easy, but that is in fact what we were elected to do, to correct an absolute abhorrent mess of regulation, of legislation, of massive buildup of debt.

Quite frankly, while it's taking time, we are on track, jobs are being created. Every job creator I've talked to -- that's somebody who actually plans to invest five cents of their own money to create a job -- has told us that there is a better climate for job creation today than there was when the NDP were there.

Every private sector job creator -- these again are the ones who plan to risk their own house or their own money or make their own investments -- says, "If you will carry through on the agenda, it will be even better in the future." And we want those jobs, not in Alberta, not in the United States, not somewhere else, we want those jobs that we deserve and should be had right here in the province of Ontario, and we're going to get them.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Since the announced closing of the money-losing government airline norOntair, there has been concern expressed by some that the private sector would not adequately serve northern Ontario.

Opposition parties have speculated, for example, that as many as nine of the 16 communities in northern Ontario that norOntair serves will be left without a carrier after March 29. Can you update the Legislature on this situation and tell me what you, as minister, are doing to help ensure that air service continues to northern communities?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the member's question. I'm proud to inform the House that we have been working closely with the communities in northern Ontario that have been served by norOntair. Almost right from the start, the private sector indicated its intention to enter and remain in 13 of the 16 communities inside Ontario or 14 of the 17 communities served all over Ontario. I'm pleased today to inform the House that the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission has announced that an interim contract has been finalized with Voyageur Airways to serve the remaining three communities. I think that's a very positive step.

I would like to talk about another situation in regard to this. That was Atikokan, which was formerly served by norOntair and which was cancelled by the NDP a few years ago. I know there's been a lot of discussion around the fact that a subsidy was offered to Atikokan last year by a former minister. I can inform the House that we have completed that deal. It was a good deal. It saves the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. It's cheaper than subsidizing a whole airline and it allows the private sector to thrive in northern Ontario.

The assets go back into ONTC to help the ONTC's other operations remain viable and enhance economic development in northern Ontario, and I think that's a very proper thing and a positive step for northern Ontario.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), I'd like to advise you of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Education and Training and therefore I will be filing the appropriate papers with the Clerk in order to have what's called a late show.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it says:

"Whereas the government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas the concept of affordable, accessible and quality child care is a basic important fundamental right for many members of our community who are either unemployed and enrolled into a training program or are single, working parents or where both parents are working; and

"Whereas if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the Jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to child care workers;

"We therefore, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care providers of Metro Toronto, urge the government of Ontario to immediately restore the funding to the child care system of this province to the previous levels."

I've affixed my signature to this document.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here signed by 200 or 300 citizens from the community of Timmins and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas Bill 26 exempts the government as an employer from key legislation governing pensions in Ontario; and

"Whereas employees of the Ontario government have been stripped of their rights to access pension security, a right that other workers in Ontario have; and

"Whereas this represents the theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in pension benefits from working people; and

"Whereas as a result thousands of workers who face being laid off in the upcoming months could be forced into poverty,

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to reinstate the rights removed by

schedule L of Bill 26."

I am signing that petition.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I submit to the Parliament of Ontario a petition signed by hundreds of Parkdale residents on behalf of the Parkdale Public School Community Association, expressing concern to maintain the quality of education in the city of Toronto and calling upon the government to support classroom provision of special education, services to immigrants and inner-city allocations of staffing to establish equity in education for students that are not calculated as extra-to-classroom education.

The petition also calls upon the government to recognize inner-city standards as part of provincial guidelines for equity of outcomes for all Ontario students as well as the need to work towards a goal of fair tax reform that does not discriminate against higher-density communities and the need to emphasize in policy reform a commitment to public education as a basis of maintaining a healthy urban centre in Toronto.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

CHILD CARE

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition here regarding child care. It's signed by approximately 26 persons and I'm presenting it on behalf of the member for Simcoe East.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions here from Pearl Mackay and Dan Gilbert on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers. They read as follows:

"Petition to the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Labour:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are opposed to your government's proposed changes to Ontario's workers' compensation system including elimination of the bipartite board of directors; reduced temporary benefits; introduction of the three-day period from the time of injury with no pay; legislated time limits on entitlement, thereby excluding repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims from eligibility for compensation; reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements; and

"Whereas workers' compensation is not a handout; it is an insurance plan for which premiums are paid; it is a legal obligation that employers have to employees who 80 years ago traded their right to sue employers in return for this insurance plan;

"Therefore, we demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent injuries, no reduction in current Workers' Compensation Board staff levels and the bipartite board structure to be left intact."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

I have signed this petition.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): On Friday, March 22, 1996, I was presented with three petitions and an open letter from the striking Ontario Public Service Employees Union members who visited me at my constituency office.

The first is a petition to the Legislature to reinstate successor rights for public service employees, and it's signed by 141 people.

The second petition is with respect to the rights outlined in

schedule L of Bill 26, and it's signed by 157 individuals.

The third and final petition is a request for the government to allow the size of the Ontario public service to be reduced through attrition rather than staff reductions, and it's signed by 140 people.

The open letter that accompanied these petitions was signed by 424 individuals and outlined how the union could implement its 30-point plan to reduce costs.

I promised I would present these petitions and open letter to this House, and I've done so.

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here with a number of signatures, some of the 16,000 signatures that we've got on this particular petition. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That a recommendation by the Psychiatric Hospital Restructuring Committee to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital be rejected.

"We believe the restructuring committee has not fully considered the case for retaining St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

"We believe the hospital and the community of St Thomas provide care and caring for psych patients which is equal to, and better than London.

"We believe closure of the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital will have a devastating impact on the economy and the residents of St Thomas and Elgin county.

"We believe London can better absorb the impact of closure of the London Psychiatric Hospital.

"Finally, we believe it would be cheaper for government to retain the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital in terms of capital improvements required to both facilities.

"Therefore, we request that the government refrain from endorsing and implementing the recommendation to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital."

I thank you, Mr Speaker.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas acknowledging the serious situation in Ontario with regard to the size of the present deficit; and

"Whereas being conversant with the fact that transfer payments from the federal government are being drastically cut and resulting in an acute need for the overhaul and streamlining of the Ontario government's expenditures; and

"Whereas due to changing world trade patterns, the economy of Ontario is in a state of transition and not performing at top capacity, thus creating a situation where numbers of Ontarians are unemployed and many families, including their children, are suffering great hardship;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to take into account the suffering of the underprivileged residents of Ontario, particularly the children, and to reconsider the recent 20% cut to their incomes. Further, to postpone indefinitely, in the name of compassion, the tax rebate of 30% promised in the recent election, thus enabling the largest possible number of residents of Ontario to be properly fed, clothed and sheltered."

I've signed my name to it as well.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition without attacking basic rights and dignities of hard-working people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I agree with this petition and I have signed my name.

GLENORA-ADOPHUSTOWN FERRY SERVICE

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition today to reopen Glenora ferry.

"It is now past the 19th day of the OPSEU strike. As concerned citizens of Adolphustown township and surrounding area, we are asking you to intervene on our behalf to get the Glenora ferry back in service.

"The Glenora ferry is an essential service, an extension of Highway 33, which is absolutely necessary to get us back and forth to work, school, to visit doctors, dentists etc, and to conduct various aspects of our daily business.

"Ambulance service to and from Picton is now at a standstill. The absence of this service has created hardship for many of us, both financially and personally. As an example, one local merchant has reported a 40% to 50% drop in his business since the onset of this strike.

"As well, it is extremely difficult to add two or three hours of commuting time per day to already busy schedules. If the ferry cannot be reopened full-time during this ongoing strike, then we would suggest it be reopened for the core hours of 6 to 9 am and 5 to 8 pm."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to remove rent controls; and

"Whereas the removal of rent control legislation breaks the campaign promise made by the Conservatives during the election; and

"Whereas a great number of tenants are seniors and people on fixed incomes and many have had their income cut by 22% due to social assistance cuts and cannot afford increases in their rent; and

"Whereas growing unemployment and the scarcity of affordable housing in Metro makes the removal of rent control an even greater disaster for tenants and for people who cannot afford to buy homes;

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

"That the government of Ontario keep their pre-election promise and not remove rent controls and continue with the Landlord and Tenant Act and Rental Housing Protection Act."

I affix my name to this petition.

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore

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

I add my signature to theirs.

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Friends of Scarborough General Hospital. This morning at my constituency office, the Friends of Scarborough General Hospital, including Chair Gerry Quinn, several Scarborough firefighters and many residents, including the Armstrong family, presented me, as MPP for Scarborough Centre, a petition from over 9,000 Scarborough residents. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

I am pleased to affix my name to this petition.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the members of the Ontario public service are earnestly attempting to negotiate an equitable and respectful collective agreement with the government of Ontario; and

"Whereas a fair collective agreement is evidence of this government's respect for Ontario's public services, the workers who provide them and those who need them; and

"Whereas by introducing Bill 7 and Bill 26 prior to commencing negotiations, the government removed significant rights from OPSEU members that other workers in Ontario retain; and

"Whereas reducing the size of the civil service can be achieved through attrition, without attacking basic rights and dignities of hardworking people;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to negotiate responsibly and in good faith with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union towards a fair and respectful collective agreement."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

CORRECTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier today, the pages of the House were introduced, and only for the reason of correcting the record I am pleased to say that the name of the page who is here from Essex South is Kelly MacTavish. I am pleased to welcome her.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The point is well taken.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEZING OF COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 GELANT LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to fix the Indemnities and Allowances of Members of the Assembly at the Levels in effect on March 31, 1996 / Projet de loi 32, Loi fixant les indemnités et les allocations des députés à l'Assemblée aux niveaux en vigueur le 31 mars 1996.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the pleasure of the House that this bill carry? Carried.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Just very brief comments: This bill freezes the compensation of members of the provincial Legislature at current levels, which have been in effect since 1993, and prevents an increase of 5.5% scheduled for April 1, 1996. This increase would have returned the compensation to the levels in effect before the start of the three-year social contract put in place by the previous government. We do not support that increase, and it's my understanding, having discussed this matter with the other two House leaders, that they do not as well.

We are committed to reforming the compensation system for members of the assembly and abolishing the gold-plated pension plan that goes with it. We will be replacing the current system with one which is straightforward and fair as soon as possible.

In conclusion, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to call this bill as the first order of business today and to proceed with passage of all three stages of the bill at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 33, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you wish to make any comments?

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): This bill amends the Legislative Assembly Act to provide that a member of the assembly shall not receive any indemnity as a member for a period during which the member is suspended from the service of the assembly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FREEZING OF COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 GELANT LA RÉTRIBUTION DES DÉPUTÉS À L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Mr Eves moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to fix the Indemnities and Allowances of Members of the Assembly at the Levels in effect on March 31, 1996 / Projet de loi 32, Loi fixant les indemnités et les allocations des députés à l'Assemblée aux niveaux en vigueur le 31 mars 1996.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any comments, Minister?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I've given my brief introductory remarks with respect to this bill on first reading. I understand that the other two House leaders have a few comments to make as well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There is, I think, unanimity in the Legislature on this. Members of the Legislature, I am certain, at no time had any thought that there would be an increase, even though under the social contract, coming out of it, there would normally be an increase or at least placing members back where they were when they were cut back by 5%.

We have agreed to this six-year pay freeze that we're now in the middle of, and it is agreed that although others may be in this position, we as members of the Legislative Assembly shall not revert back to our position at the time of the social contract's passing in this Legislature.

I, as one member, and I'm sure all members of my caucus, at no time anticipated that this would be the case. We were not aware until last week that a bill would be necessary for this purpose, but I think you'll find, at least in our caucus, unanimous consent for this legislation.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): We too will be supporting this legislation, but I do want to make one thing clear: We are not talking about a piece of legislation to eliminate a pay increase. The legislation that is being dealt with today maintains the pay reduction that was put in place through the social contract legislation. I believe we are the only workers at the provincial level that by legislation have taken now a permanent pay reduction, which is fine. We understand that. That's the leadership we all were called on to provide. But I think it is inappropriate for anything to be reported that this legislation prevents a pay increase, because it was not a pay increase.

We have taken, as the House leader for the official opposition has said, a six-year pay freeze, and in addition to that, in the six-year pay freeze there's been I think a 5.5% reduction. So for six years we've not just had a freeze; we've had a reduction. Fine. That's part of the economic circumstances the province was in during the recession. But I think it would be inappropriate if anybody in this Legislature tried to score political points by saying this bill was going to prevent some kind of a pay increase. That was not the case. This bill is necessary as we await the overall reforms on pension and pay that the government is having a tough time figuring out.

The Acting Speaker: Any further debate?

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

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Mr Eves moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 32,

An Act to fix the Indemnities and Allowances of Members of the Assembly at the Levels in effect on March 31, 1996 / Projet de loi 32, Loi fixant les indemnités et les allocations des députés à l'Assemblée aux niveaux en vigueur le 31 mars 1996.

The Acting Speaker: Any comments? Any further debate? Shall the motion carry? Carried.

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

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 19,

An Act to repeal the Advocacy Act, 1992, revise the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992, amend the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and amend other Acts in respect of related matters / Projet de loi 19, Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, révisant la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement, modifiant la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne des questions connexes.

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

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm very happy to resume my remarks on Bill 19.

This Conservative government has said no to the Advocacy Act, a Conservative government that has said no to the Advocacy Commission, a Conservative government that has said no to rights advisers, and a Conservative government that has said no to advocates.

They haven't listened to the opposition members and they certainly weren't listening to the many deputations that came in front of our committee, from whom I learned a great deal.

I want to list again a few other organizations that came before our committee: Dixon Hall Neighbourhood Centre; the Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition of Ontario; Family Association for Mental Health Everywhere; Family Mental Health Alliance; Geriatric Psychiatric Services; Hospital for Sick Children; International Association for the Right to Effective Treatment; Intervention des sourds francophones ontariens; London Battered Women's Advocacy Centre; Medical Health Centre; National Action Committee on the Status of Women; Neighbourhood Legal Services; Niagara Mental Health Survivors Network; Ontario Advocacy Coalition; Ontario Association for Community Living; Ontario Advocacy Commission; Ontario AIDS Network, Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers and many, many more.

I just wanted to continue with the list so people get a sense of all the deputants that came in front of our committee, many of whom attempted to speak to the whole issue of advocacy and to remind the government that what it was doing by repealing the Advocacy Act was wrong.

It's important to remind the public about these deputations so they don't get the feeling that it's simply a member or some members of the opposition who are opposed to it just because they're in opposition. I am opposed to it, as indeed are our caucus and many other members, because we have listened to what the people said and to what they told us, not just in Toronto but in Thunder Bay, Windsor, Ottawa and Peterborough and so on, everywhere in fact, through all the letters we have received. So I wanted to continue by putting on the record a number of things that have been said by these grass-roots organizations that are very closely connected to the communities they serve.

This is a deputation by some concerned citizens associated with Centretown Community Health Centre who are users of mental health services, and they said:

"After many years of consultation, we finally got government" -- meaning the NDP government -- "support for advocacy, and now the new government is starting the process all over again. We are tired of having to start from point zero, tired of having to educate yet another bunch of politicians. The government should be continuing what the people asked for."

They're not continuing with what the people had asked for for 15 years. In fact, they're discontinuing it by repealing the Advocacy Act.

The Ontario Advocacy Coalition said the following:

"The announcement that the Advocacy Act is to be revoked has been met with dismay, consternation and anger by those of us who over the last 15 years have studied, discussed, written, presented, argued, demonstrated and compromised in the interests of obtaining legislation to protect vulnerable people....

"The underlying theme and purpose of the Advocacy Act was to empower vulnerable people by helping them to understand their rights and the choices available, assisting them in carrying out their wishes and providing mechanisms whereby they could participate in the process of developing advocacy services.

"That many of our most vulnerable adults suffer from maltreatment at the hands of their caregivers, either family or institution, is no secret, as witness the number of court cases and coroners' inquests which have come to the attention of the public through the press."

You have such a coalition, involved in the field for many years, working in the field for 15 years, telling us why the Advocacy Act was important, telling us about the court cases that have been around and have been part of what has informed them and us about why we needed the Advocacy Act. And what does this government do? It doesn't listen. It says no to advocacy and it says no to the Advocacy Act.

Another submission, by A-WAY, says:

"We cannot assume that all people have a voice; many do not and many never will. However, many could develop that voice with the proper tools and education and time. Many could learn to advocate on others' behalf with the proper tools."

They had the tools, they had the Advocacy Act, and this Conservative reform government has eliminated, repealed the Advocacy Act. They've taken away a tool that gave them a voice and substituted those tools for other tools that introduced user fees in Ontario. That's what they've done. They have taken away effective tools that gave people a voice and have created other tools that allow municipalities to introduce user fees. Those are the tools they have given to municipalities that allow municipalities to increase taxes indirectly, and they've taken away a tool that gives vulnerable people a voice. That's what this government is all about.

I continue with another submission made by ALPHA:

"The rush to pass this extensive bill is disconcerting.... Contrary to misinformed press reports, the Advocacy Act, 1992, provided assistance to vulnerable adults so that they understood their rights and could express their wishes if they had difficulty doing so on their own, for whatever reason. The act supported the development of strong family relationships, where possible. The act specifically required advocates to encourage the involvement of the family. However, if the family/caregiver was abusive, an advocate could have supplied support to assist the person to find other living arrangements in the community."

ALPHA, the Action League of Physically Handicapped Adults, says it provided assistance to vulnerable adults so that they understood their rights and could express their wishes. The act supported the development of strong family relationships and specifically required advocates to encourage the involvement of the family, and where there was abuse, they could be there to provide assistance to persons to find other living arrangements.

This Conservative government, this reform government, has said no to all of these things. They say: "No, we're not in this business. We shouldn't be providing it. Other people are." ALPHA says that is not the case. ALPHA came to tell us why we needed the Advocacy Act and this government will continue to permit abuses to happen because we now no longer have the tools, through the act, through the Advocacy Commission and advocates and rights advisers to get to that abuse.

So this government that cares