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

August 26, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L219a - Tue 26 Aug 1997 / Mar 26 Aoû 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

REFUGEES

ORILLIA SOLDIERS' MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GASOLINE PRICES

SARNIA ECONOMY

ROAD SAFETY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

CANADA SUMMER GAMES

VISITOR

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SCARBOROUGH ENTERTAINMENT AND CONVENTION CORPORATION ACT, 1997

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

HOME CARE

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

CHARITABLE GAMING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

FIRE IN HAMILTON

COURT DECISION

GASOLINE PRICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COURT DECISION

WATER CHLORINATION

GASOLINE PRICES

PAY EQUITY

COURT DECISION

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The Harris government's tyrannical tactics are once again on display. Now the government is eager to apply the workfare program to seniors and the disabled. Ontario's seniors will be pointing the finger at you, Premier, and your cohorts, who are repeatedly forgetting what you said in your Common Sense Revolution.

You said that you would take seniors and the disabled out of the welfare system and that you would establish a new and separate income supplement program specifically for those unable to work. You stated that funding for this program would be guaranteed at current levels and for seniors and the disabled there would be no cuts.

Now the seniors and the disabled, the most vulnerable people in our province, are once again being made scapegoats of your mean-spirited policies. Slashing the benefits of poor seniors and the disabled by over $400 a month, you're penalizing the most needy group only as a result of your misguided and incompetent government.

Remember, however, that it will be this group that will ultimately judge you, and they will remember your broken promises. They will be there to remind you of the Mike Harris cuts to seniors and the disabled, user fees for drugs, user fees for the sick, less access to medical care. Only a very desperate and frantic government seeks to target the poorest and most vulnerable by slashing their welfare benefits almost in half. Indeed, Mr Premier, the seniors will remember.

REFUGEES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This morning I met with some of the Czech Gypsy families who have arrived in Toronto seeking refugee status. These people are fleeing the violence, the attacks, indeed the murders of Gypsies in the Czech Republic that have, as they have reported to me, been met with indifference by authorities in the Czech Republic.

They have suffered generations of discrimination and violence. One need not go far back into history to recall that Gypsies in the Czech Republic and others were among the millions that were herded into Hitler's abattoirs, into the Nazi camps and ovens. They expect no more than to be treated fairly and with due process under our existing immigration and refugee laws; they deserve no less.

We must condemn the racism that has emerged, that has surfaced, that has reared its tainted, ugly head in response to these tragic people's search for refuge here in this country. I condemn the comments of the ilk of Gordon Chong, who displays himself as a racist in his ill-tempered and evil comments about these people. I tell you, Speaker, if only we could have been a place of refuge for some of those who had been herded into those ovens but 55 years ago. I appeal to all --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much.

ORILLIA SOLDIERS' MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): We have options. Past provincial governments lacked the courage to support health care restructuring, and the result is an Ontario lagging behind other provinces in reforming and developing a health care system emphasizing patient services.

We have the option to be like the opposition party, to look at health services restructuring and complain about change and create situations designed to cause fear and anxiety, or we can look at situations where health care providers have taken up this government's challenge and can now add up their accomplishments.

In my riding of Simcoe East, the staff, nurses, doctors and volunteers of Soldiers' Memorial Hospital in Orillia have more than met this government's challenges. I am proud to report they have taken the lead and surpassed all. These people know their future lies in satisfied patients and a more informed and healthier community.

With a referral population of 75,000, Soldiers' Memorial closed 12 beds in 1997 and reduced the number of patients waiting more than four weeks for elective surgery by 29%. They have reduced costs wherever possible, saving $40,000 per year on one contract for sutures alone. A recent report of the chairman of Soldiers' states, "Even with service expansions and new programs being added, a balanced budget was once again achieved."

Soldiers' Memorial took the option of creating progress with teamwork, technological advances and quality management principles. Ontario has provided the blueprint for Soldiers'.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise today with regard to the lack of information from the Conservative government and inaccurate estimated financial costs of municipal downloading.

The city of Cornwall writes that your government has not been forthcoming with information about your offloading plans, and requests a meeting with the Premier and Minister Al Leach. Further, the city states that the correspondence received from Minister Leach describing a potential allocation of costs and revenues from Cornwall and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry does not match projected costs.

The city estimates that the government offloading plans will require the city to come up with $18.85 million. Minister Leach said that municipalities assume an extra 2% cut per annum for three years. The city states that they have already reduced staff by 11.28% and the budget by several millions of dollars. Further cuts will result in the elimination of key services. The united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry said provincial estimates are misleading and state that the offloading will cost an additional $18.9 million.

In the Toronto Sun, Minister Leach said there is only one damn taxpayer, but these municipal councils don't want to assume the provincial share.

Premier and Minister, please take the time and meet with these councils to discuss your offloading calculations.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Speaker, you are aware, as is everybody else in this House, of the extraordinary rise in the price of gasoline across this province in the last couple of weeks. I want to speak for just a few minutes this afternoon about the impact on northern Ontario and particularly the impact on the issue of cross-border shopping.

It's absolutely phenomenal, the impact this will have on my community of Sault Ste Marie, which is a cross-border community. It's disturbing given the efforts that were made by governments over the last five to 10 years to try to come to terms with this. You will remember, because you were here as part of the opposition when we were in government trying to comes to terms with the impact the cross-border shopping phenomenon had on many communities in Ontario, that Bob Rae was called the businessman of the year in Buffalo on one of the billboards down at the corner of Dundas.

As government, by your inaction, what you are allowing the petroleum industry to do to the community of Sault Ste Marie is to get us back into that exact position again. We were beginning to feel some relief. As a matter of fact, I was talking to a small business person in the Sault this morning who said this summer she was feeling particularly good about the amount of gasoline she was selling at her small gas bar, and when the Michigan government decided to increase the taxes on gasoline, was quite excited because it meant it would positively impact on our side of the border. But when the petroleum industry came in and whacked us across the head with the increases that they did --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you so much.

SARNIA ECONOMY

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): In cooperation with Sarnia's home-town newspaper, the Observer, it's my pleasure to provide all members of this House with a copy of a special Observer edition marking the completion of the second span of the International Blue Water Bridge.

Along with this special edition, I want to extend an invitation to all members to visit our community, which has become the most strategic site for new investment in Canada, as was noted by the Globe and Mail's business magazine a short while ago. Six million vehicles cross the Blue Water Bridge annually, a number projected to double by the year 2000.

The completion of the second span is vital to business and industry and will help promote a healthy tourism environment in Ontario and in my riding.

The $100-million project is testimony to the strong ties we have with our American neighbours. Ontario is open for business, our community is open for business, and through the cooperation of countless individuals and groups, we will be building on the opportunities offered by the bridge.

Exciting things are happening and I encourage all members to visit my riding and enjoy the water, parks and host of cultural activities that make Sarnia a great place to live, work and play.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): It seems that Minister of Transportation Al Palladini is perpetually stuck in neutral. I rise today to remind him that one year ago today a truck accident claimed the life of Kim Wong, who lived in North York. It happened when a runaway truck coming off an exit ramp at Steeles Avenue and Highway 404 crashed into her home. A retaining wall at the end of the ramp could have prevented this tragedy.

It's also been a year since the minister promised he would install a safety barrier at the site to prevent future accidents. To date, he's done nothing to keep his word, and the residents of Meadoways are still living in fear. Our transportation minister just can't get his engine started when it comes to living up to his responsibilities.

You've had a year to act. The residents of Meadoways have made repeated requests for you to do something. All they have received are empty promises.

Tonight I will be joining Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty and the residents of the community of Meadoways. We will gather to remember Kim Wong with a tree dedication and ribbon ceremony.

We will also be there to remind the minister that he has a responsibility to the residents of Meadoways to ensure their community is safe.

This is another example of the minister's inability to do his job. It took him more than two years to deal with truck wheel safety. Highway 407 has been stalled for months. When will you break the cycle of delays? When will you finally fulfil the promises you made to the residents of Meadoways?

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): As the Toronto Star points out today, "The doors are locked and the lights are off this week at one of Ontario's most popular and unique institutions." The Metro Toronto Reference Library has been temporarily closed due to funding cuts directly as a result of this government. Those funding cuts have resulted in a loss of 30% of their funding, 140 jobs gone, restricting hours, trimming the collection, cutting new book purchases and cancelling more than 1,000 periodicals.

This library is the jewel in the crown of the library system in the province. It's used by more than 1.5 million people a year. That's three times more people than visited the Art Gallery of Ontario and half again as many as went to the Royal Ontario Museum. Yet as the

article points out, the library seems to be dying a death of a thousand cuts.

Of the people who use this library, 42% are students and 32% are business people. Many people rely on these services.

As the Toronto Star says: "There's a price to pay for the Tory tax break for the rich. There's a price to pay for such ideologically driven procedures."

CANADA SUMMER GAMES

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I ask the members of this House to join me in congratulating the extraordinary Ontario athletes and their coaches and managers who are bringing home the Canada Games flag from Brandon.

Ontario was declared the winner of the 1997 Canada Games on Saturday, with 272 flag points. This makes 13 of 16 Canada Games that Team Ontario has won. Team Ontario has also won the most medals for individual performance, taking 64 gold, 36 silver and 54 bronze.

The 354 athletes on the Ontario team were all winners. Many of them prepared for years to compete at the games, and once they got there they showed their talent, their determination and their heart.

Residents of my riding are especially proud of two local athletes who have brought home medals from the games: Andrew Munro, who won a gold in swimming in the 400-metre freestyle relay, and Adam Strickland. with a silver medal in wrestling.

We are proud of them and we are proud of the more than 4,000 fine young athletes from all over the country who competed in the Canada Summer Games. Qualifying to compete at these games is a significant achievement.

The drive for excellence and the team spirit these young people displayed at the games shows us what athletic achievement is all about. We are fortunate to have so many fine young athletes in this country. Some of them will be competing in the 2001 games in London, Ontario, and a few of them will go on to represent Canada internationally.

The people of Brandon, Manitoba, also deserve our thanks for doing such a marvellous job of hosting the 1997 Canada Summer Games.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce, in the Speaker's gallery of the Legislative Assembly, the Honourable Dorothy Isaksen, MLC, from Sydney, Australia, the Upper House, New South Wales, who also happens to be the chief government whip. Welcome.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): On Thursday, August 21, 1997, the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) rose on a point of order. He asked the Speaker to rule on the orderliness of Bill 152,

An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda.

The government House leader (Mr Johnson) and the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley) also spoke to the issue.

The essential concern raised by the member for Algoma was that the bill was an omnibus bill that seeks to amend many unrelated pieces of legislation.

I agree that Bill 152 is an omnibus bill. Omnibus bills have been the subject of much procedural scrutiny in the course of the 35th and 36th parliaments because governments have increasingly used them as vehicles for submitting related proposals for the consideration of the House. There may come a time when an omnibus bill is procedurally unacceptable and when the

long title will not save the bill.

The procedural concern that has been raised about such bills is that the proposals in them are not related. However, Bill 152 is not such a bill. I have examined the bill carefully, and it does appear to have a theme of relevancy -- a tangible link -- among its components.

Therefore, while the member may have a legitimate grievance, that alone does not make the bill out of order. All I can say is what I have said on a previous occasion, namely, that the House has it within its power to establish rules or guidelines that will in future alleviate concerns such as the one raised by the member for Algoma.

I thank the member, as well as the government House leader and the member for St Catharine, for their submissions.

Yesterday, the member for Hamilton Centre raised a point of order with respect to the decision of the subcommittee of the standing committee on resources development and a document produced by the Ministry of Labour.

The Ministry of Labour document states that the clause-by-clause review of Bill 99 is to begin on August 25, 1997. This is obviously an error, since yesterday was August 25 and, to the best of my knowledge, clause-by-clause consideration did not commence. While there is no doubt that it is incorrect information, I do not believe that it anticipates any decision of this House. In accordance with an order of this House, clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will happen. The fact that the document has an incorrect start date is neither out of order nor does it constitute a prima facie case of privilege.

The member for Hamilton Centre also raised the issue of a subcommittee decision being subsequently overridden by the full committee. The member will know that the Speaker will not rule on matters that are before committees; however, in a general way I want to state that, with few exceptions, any decision of a subcommittee must be approved by the full committee. It is not out of order for the full committee to amend or defeat subcommittee reports.

I find then that there is nothing out of order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SCARBOROUGH ENTERTAINMENT AND CONVENTION CORPORATION ACT, 1997

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr86,

An Act to establish the Scarborough Entertainment and Convention Corporation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ONTARIO SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

Ms Bassett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 153,

An Act to provide more protection for animals by amending the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 153, Loi prévoyant une protection accrue des animaux en modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you have any short comments?

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): My private member's bill will amend the OSPCA Act to provide for better protection for animals from cruelty and neglect by introducing fines and penalties for people who abuse animals. This bill will allow humane societies right across Ontario to get tough with animal abusers by creating substantial deterrents for offenders. The bill has been developed in partnership with the Ontario Humane Society and the Toronto Humane Society, and I look forward to debating the bill on September 11. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will be able to support this legislation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TUITION FEES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. As you know, Premier, students are getting ready to enrol to get back to college and university next week, and they're going to do so saddled under the 30% tuition fee hike for which you bear responsibility. Never has this province seen such a tuition fee hike in that amount, 30%, that is, until the last government. The NDP were also responsible for 30%. You added to the students' burden another 30%, so that in the last several years students have experienced tuition fee hikes in total of 60%.

Premier, understanding that students are facing costs in the range of $10,000 -- that's for tuition fee hikes, housing, food, accommodation and transportation -- do you think it's fair in those circumstances to proceed with your tax cut at the expense of our students?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister would want to respond, but since I don't see him, let me begin. Should he disagree with my answer, I'm sure he'll rush in and correct the record.

I think you've correctly identified in your question that the major cost of education is not tuition. It is housing, it is food, it is cost of living and, of course, for many it's the fact that they are not out working, earning $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year. That is the big cost that students pay by going to university full-time.

We believe we have found the right balance of tuition levels, much cheaper than Nova Scotia but higher than some provinces, given the tremendous payback that comes to students and given the hundreds of millions of new dollars that we're putting into student assistance.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, we are now the lowest funder for our students when it comes to college and university education in the country. Our tuition fees are now the second highest in the country. You understand very well, and I know this, Premier, that our students' chances are much, much better when it comes to getting a job when they have completed a college or university education. What we ought to be doing is making it easier for our students to pursue post-secondary studies rather than throwing up hurdles before them.

Applications are down this year because you've allowed tuition fees to increase by 30% on your watch. Student debt load: Let's take a look at that for a moment. The average student debt load for our students who are graduating is somewhere in the range of $25,000 now. Applications are down, especially when it comes to students who are from poor families. We ought to be doing everything we can to increase those applications.

Again, Premier, if you have to choose between a tax cut and increasing tuition fees, why are you choosing the tax cut?

Hon Mr Harris: As you will know, when you were in government, Ontario was 10th and last in the funding of universities; when the NDP were in government we were 10th and last in the funding of universities; and we inherited a situation where we were 10th and last in funding universities. Others, on the other hand, have said we were first in efficiently delivering some of the best university programs in the world. I tend to agree with the latter

interpretation, but none the less, nothing has changed in our status between your government and the NDP government and our government. What has changed substantially, though, is this: hundreds of millions of new dollars going into student assistance and working as fast as we can with the federal government to get an income-contingent loan plan.

Yes, tuition fees comprise about 34% of operating revenues for our Ontario universities. We believe that's a pretty sound investment, equivalent perhaps to an investment somebody makes in the average North American car. I suggest four years of university --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I think it's important for us to keep the record straight. The fact of the matter is that you have cut funding to our colleges and universities by $387 million. You have increased tuition fees for our college and university students by 30%. On your watch we have now become the lowest funder per capita when it comes to post-secondary education in the land, in Canada.

On your watch, 44 out of 50 American states increased funding to their publicly funded universities. What is it they understand? Well, I can tell you what they understand, Premier, something you clearly do not understand: We have to invest in our students in order to ensure that we can compete in the global marketplace. We are going to make it because we have the best educated workforce in the world, and we should accept nothing less.

Once again, Premier, why is it that you've insisted on increasing our tuition fees at a time when, instead of giving us that tax cut, you ought to be making it simpler and easier for students who enrol in post-secondary studies?

Hon Mr Harris: Of course the tax cut is what is creating the jobs, leading the nation, leading the United States, leading all of North America in job creation, so that when students graduate with a debt equivalent to about a North American car, they'll have a job to pay back that loan, pay back that investment.

Naturally, we are investing about two thirds of taxpayer dollars into their education, and we are asking them to invest about 35% or 34% of the cost of tuition. Why you would relate the biggest job creation measure in Canada, by way of a tax reduction that's actually bringing us more money, with anything to do with that great investment in education -- I don't know why you would link that.

But I agree with your statement that we are going to make it here in the province of Ontario. In spite of what we inherited from your government and the NDP government, we are going to make it because we will have the best-educated workforce in the world.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is in the hope of a better answer that I direct this to the Premier. I want to ask you about your hospital closings. To the perplexity of people all around the province, you have sent the Harris hospital destruction commission to shut down 25 hospitals and you have caused a lot of concern, but right now you're causing some hurt and hardship. The first Harris hospital shutdown is taking place at Northwestern hospital in Metro Toronto.

What they've done is taken out obstetrics and gynaecology and didn't notify anyone. Pregnant women have shown up at emergency and waited as long as four hours to be seen. One woman in critical need had equipment from another hospital sent over by taxi to help her, and they tried to train the nurses on the spot to be able to use that equipment. She didn't get the service until the next day -- at some risk to her.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The question?

Mr Kennedy: I want to know if you're going to have your health minister intervene and slow down the shutdown at Northwestern, which is going to take place on November 3 of this year, not two years from now and not after --

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you know, the Minister of Health doesn't run hospitals, but I would be glad to have the Minister of Health look into the situation at Northwestern, because indeed we are the government that funds hospitals, and I believe by virtue of that we're entitled to answers from the hospitals.

But I can tell you this: We have absolutely no desire to slow down things the Health Services Restructuring Commission called for, like 5,207 new long-term-care beds, 4,181 long-term-care community spaces, five new MRIs, 30 additional child-adolescent mental health beds by 2003. These are the investments in new, modern hospitals and in health care that we are committed to making in the Toronto area.

Mr Kennedy: I think the people of Ontario now can gauge how phoney that list of so-called commitments is. Your restructuring commission told the people of northwest Metro that it would be two years before their hospital was shut down. It told them on your behalf that $55 million would be invested in new community services. Not one penny has been spent and not one penny will be spent, and this hospital will be shut down.

Yesterday two women went into Humber Memorial Hospital to receive Caesarean sections. They were scheduled for 10 am. It took till 11:20 last night, 13 hours later. The only reason they received the service that late is because of the volume. You have stuffed the obstetrics and gynaecology into a hospital, 193 additional births since August and only one extra bed.

Will you stand up and show the people of Ontario --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Transportation, I would ask that you withdraw that comment, please.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kennedy: You can leave the people of Ontario with a choice here: of believing that either you have a renegade commission that can make all kinds of promises and mean nothing to protect health care, or that we have a Premier and a minister who will stand up for patients and do something about the rushed shutdown of Northwestern hospital. Will you tell us today?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes. I've already told you, and now I'll tell you for the second time, I'd be happy to have the Minister of Health look into your allegations, unfounded or otherwise. If they are founded, I am sure the Minister of Health will --

Mr Kennedy: They're founded.

Hon Mr Harris: You say they're founded, but most of the time it turns out they're not. That's the record of your party, of your leader and your government, so you can understand why we want to check the facts first.

We have accepted the advice of the restructuring commission that called for 4,350 more patients to be served through the cardiac management program; we have accepted their recommendation of an additional $8 million to $10 million to the women's health council for province-wide research and education; we've accepted their recommendation for a Metro-wide rehab network to coordinate access to services; we've accepted their recommendation for the establishment of a children's health network for sick kids to lead in development. It is these investments into modern 21st-century health care that are going to allow Ontario to continue to lead the world in quality health care.

Mr Kennedy: Here's something the people of Ontario don't imagine: $22 million was cut from these hospitals, including Northwestern, by you -- not imaginary dollars, not the promises you're making that you won't keep, but a real $22 million is gone. It has forced 450,000 people to get substandard care thanks to you, Mr Harris.

This is your chance to show people what you're made of. A woman had to give birth yesterday behind the nurses' station -- no curtains, no privacy, in a so-called modern hospital in your Ontario in 1997.

I want your assurance, Mr Premier. Let's find out whether you really mean it. Let's find out whether you're really going to protect patients. Will you give us an assurance that your minister will visit this hospital, will send a team of his staff in there to look at the substandard care that's being delivered, and that he'll do it immediately? Will you give us an assurance today? If not, then the people of Ontario will know that no one is looking after patient care in your government.

Hon Mr Harris: I've indicated, and will now indicate for the third time, that I'd be glad to have the Minister of Health, when I talk to him, look into it. I don't know if you're calling for an audit of the hospital -- that may be what's required -- if you're indicating that is part of the problem, but I am happy to commit to the member to ask the Minister of Health to look into the situation at the hospital.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday at the AMO conference, municipal politicians laughed at you. You tried to spin your line about your download being revenue-neutral, but they just weren't buying.

To top it all off, you actually claimed yesterday that you would get income distribution programs off the property tax -- this from a minister who has piled $1.75 billion in social housing and welfare costs on to the backs of municipalities. That's $1.75 billion in income distribution programs that municipalities never had to pay before.

Minister, you're saying one thing and you're doing another once again. I just want to ask you this: Are you making a pathetic attempt to fool people, or do you really believe that making municipalities pay $1.75 billion amounts to a tax cut?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I think taking $2.5 billion of income redistribution costs off the property tax is a good start. Taking 50% of the education costs off the property tax is a great start.

I told AMO yesterday that in my view, getting social services and education off the property tax was a goal this government would achieve. As the finances of this province improve, we will move in that direction.

Let's talk about what this government has done to date. What did we say we would do? We said we'd eliminate the deficit. We're well on the way. Did we say we were going to balance the budget? Yes, and it's well under way. Did we say we would get education costs under control? We are: $2.5 billion off the property tax and a commitment to go even further when the financial situation of the province continues to improve. All these things were told to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario yesterday, and they know that when this government says it's going to do something --

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

Mr Silipo: These are by and large small-c and large-c conservative people across the province and they're laughing at you. When they're laughing at you, you're beyond redemption.

Yesterday you actually admitted that you're downloading $666 million in unconditional grants and that you weren't counting that when you talked about revenue neutrality. You at least admitted that. That's $666 million in tax hikes and service cuts for the people of Ontario, courtesy of Al Leach and Mike Harris. No wonder municipal leaders booed you yesterday when you had the gall to try to blame them for any tax hikes. How can you expect people to believe you when you say that $666 million isn't an issue? How can you crow, as you did yesterday, about lowering your own costs when you've just pushed them on to the property tax base?

Hon Mr Leach: Maybe the member of the third party doesn't understand, but I know the president of AMO, Terry Mundell, understood when he stated on May 2, 1997, in the Globe and Mail, "The reality of the situation is that the province told us about a year ago that the $667 million in municipal support grant...was being eliminated." That's the difference of the tradeoff. The municipalities certainly understood that; AMO certainly understood that.

We told them yesterday that even if they want to take the $667 million into consideration, that's $667 million on municipal spending in excess of $20 billion, which is certainly less than 3% and a situation that I certainly wouldn't find unsolvable if I were in that position, and neither do the municipalities.

Mr Silipo: That's the same Terry Mundell who said he was ambushed when you introduced your download legislation, the one you were supposed to be discussing with him as well as the AMO officials before you introduced it.

Let's talk a little bit more about process. On August 11 you met with the large urban mayors. You and the Premier agreed to undertake a thorough independent assessment of social housing costs that are being downloaded on to municipalities, yet over two weeks later nothing has happened. You've tried to blame the municipalities, but I have a letter here, which I'd be happy to send to you if you haven't already seen it, from Al Unwin, mayor of St Catharines and chair of the large urban mayors, saying that they're ready to go. This was faxed to you two weeks ago.

Tell us today when that study will begin, who will do it and what the terms of reference are. Or is this just another one of your broken promises?

Hon Mr Leach: That letter was not faxed to me two weeks ago; it was mailed a week ago Wednesday and it was finally -- found that letter yesterday, as a matter of fact. Prior to yesterday, I never saw that letter. Just to let the opposition parties know, I spoke to the mayor of Gloucester yesterday and we had a conversation. I said, "I didn't receive that letter." She said, "Strange, because it was mailed over a week ago." I said, "I'll have my staff look into it; we'll find it." We've got that letter.

I can tell the member of the opposition that the first meeting is set up with the CAOs who have been recommended by the large urban mayors to work with the municipal implementation team. It will take place this week. That's how quickly this government responded.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I want to return to your answers yesterday to my question where I was asking you to recommend a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire. You said in part that what you wanted to hear was sound evidence of why there should be a public inquiry. I want to raise three of them with you.

First, there was no evacuation for three days. Did the people who were making the decisions have the information they needed, and if not, why not? What information and how we get that information to them is a question that needs to be answered.

Second, the fire wasn't treated as a hazardous material blaze. Therefore firefighters didn't use the same equipment they would have. They weren't decontaminated throughout the fire as they otherwise would have been, and now over 200 firefighters are reporting health problems.

Third, we now know that we have the most toxic hot spot in all of Canada. Don't you think you have a responsibility to find out why that happened, how it happened and all of the measures that you should take to prevent another one?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The role of the Ministry of Environment is to provide the medical officer of health with all of the necessary information she needs in order to make her decision whether to evacuate or not evacuate. The medical officer of health has told us that she received all of the information she needed to make that particular decision. Therefore my job and the ministry's job was fulfilled to the greatest extent.

With regard to how the firefighters treated the information, which was also shared with the fire chief, who I met with the first day of the fire, he indicated as well that he was getting all of the information he needed with regard to handling the fire. I presume he took that information into account in terms of how he approached the fighting of that fire.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, if you think that answers those three questions and you can sit down and forget about it, you're sadly mistaken. The fact of the matter is the firefighters obviously weren't properly protected for some reason, whatever that might be, because we've got over 200 of them who are reporting health effects.

Your answers in terms of information -- why was there an evacuation three days later? Are you saying we can't get that information any quicker, that there's no way to make those decisions quicker? What if someone had died? The whole point is to prevent it.

Minister, I want to turn to what's happening right now. Hardy Wong is reported in the Toronto Star as saying that the money is running out from the insurance company in terms of the cleanup and it may have to stop at the end of the week. If the $300,000 remaining isn't released, indeed that cleanup will stop.

I want to know from you today, will you commit that you'll step in immediately if that money is not released and assure Hamiltonians that not one day of crucial cleanup time will be lost if the insurance company doesn't deliver the $300,000?

Hon Mr Sterling: I can in fact assure you of that. We are issuing a field order today for that very purpose.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary, member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, let me tell you what your job is. Your job is to protect the health of the people of this province and to protect the environment, nothing short of that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order.

Ms Churley: On that note, let me tell the minister some of the unanswered questions which we can't fully say today here in question period.

Why wasn't the site contained properly until July 17? I was able to walk through an open gate. That means anybody could.

Why was the dampening down not begun until July 17, or field order 22?

According to your ministry's project manager on the site, steel from the site has been sent to Dofasco. Your ministry tests are showing MOEE swiping steel up to 300 nanograms per metre squared of dioxins. The guideline for special cleanup is 25. Why has steel from the fire been sent to Dofasco as part of the cleanup when we know now -- there's no excuse for this -- that it comes from a site that's so highly toxic and dangerous?

Minister, we want to know how the cuts to your ministry have affected this. We have a lot of questions that we want answered --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Riverdale. Please come to order. Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Mr Sterling: As we have said to the residents, who of course have a very, very serious concern about this fire, we will provide them with all the information we have. I've said before that our book is open with regard to the information we have.

There was mention about the security of the site. The city of Hamilton was responsible for the security of the site to July 17. The ministry then took over the responsibility for that site, along with the polluter who is responsible for the site. Then on July 22, we issued an order to be absolutely certain that the Plastimet company was in fact securing the site to our satisfaction. We had people on the site all of that time between July 17 and July 22.

I invite the member and all members from the area to write to me with questions they might have. I know there is concern in the area. There is concern from my caucus members who represent that area. I invite them to write me and I will answer them.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. I want to return to the question raised by my colleague the member for York South, because I think your answer indicates that you don't fully appreciate the gravity of this matter.

Yesterday in Ontario a young woman delivered her baby in an Ontario hospital behind a nursing station. She was not protected by walls. She was in full public view. There were no curtains to be drawn. Both her safety and her dignity were compromised. I believe she has every reasonable expectation and every right to think that she can attend at an Ontario hospital and deliver her baby in a manner that does not compromise either her safety or her dignity.

This is happening because you are in a mad rush to close Ontario hospitals. Premier, is this what you mean when you tell us that you are leading us into a brave new world of health care in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, of course not. As I indicated, I'd be glad to have the minister look into the individual case.

I can tell you that the board, the management and the CEOs of Northwestern, Humber Memorial and York-Finch General are all very supportive of the government funding and of the government transition measures to new, more modern hospital facilities within the province. The view that your critic has expressed is not shared by the board or the management of Northwestern or of any other hospital.

You raise an individual case which would be a concern to all of us, of course. Given that even the best health care and hospital system in the world, which we have in Ontario today, is not perfect, we'd be happy to look into the individual case with a view to trying to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you should understand that this is happening as a direct result of what you're doing to hospitals in Ontario, as a direct result of what you're doing to health care in Ontario. In your efforts to shuffle buildings and numbers and dollars, you've lost sight of patients, and that's what our health care system is supposed to be all about. Fundamentally it's supposed to be there to ensure that neither the dignity nor the safety of our patients is ever compromised.

That has happened and it has happened on your watch. It's a direct result, and there is no question about that whatsoever, of the fact that you are in a mad rush to close one particular hospital, so you have transferred all of the obstetrics cases to another hospital. We are compromising the safety of patients, not only of the mother but of the baby.

Again I ask you, Premier, is this what we can expect to find in your brave new world of health care in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: Other than you and your critic, none of the professionals, none of the people involved, none of the hospital boards, none of the CEOs accept your premise. Given that your premise is false and wrong, that makes the question a moot point. If you're interested in what Ontarians can expect --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Just a minute, Premier. Member for Yorkview, if you'd please take your seat, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: If your question has to do with what Ontarians can expect, they can expect that already one of the best hospital and health care systems of the world will be even better in the future.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Premier and it's also on this particular issue. I don't think, as you are speeding down this track with no regard to what the consequences are for your actions, not taking the time to look at how they're being implemented, you realize what is going on and how it's affecting people.

Do you understand what it would be like for a woman to go in, give birth, to have to do it on the floor behind a counter in a hospital? Do you understand what it would be like for a woman to have to wait for hours and hours for a C-section? Is that the expectation, that you're saying the system will be better?

It's not what the CEOs say. It's not what the hospital boards say, although let me tell you, they're taking you to court to say that you're jeopardizing health care in this province. So you're wrong about that.

What are you going to say to the women who have gone to this hospital expecting to have the services that should be provided under our universal health care system to be able to give birth to healthy children and you, as a result of your cuts and your mismanagement of hospital restructuring, are jeopardizing them and their children and their children's births?

Hon Mr Harris: I think everybody knows we've increased health care funding in Ontario. I would respond by saying to you that there is a desperate need for restructuring in the health care sector.

Ms Lankin: Absolutely.

Hon Mr Harris: "I profoundly believe that there is a need to restructure our hospital services, our institutional services" --

Ms Lankin: I said that, and I agree with it.

Hon Mr Harris: -- "and to move resources from the institutional sector to the community sector." Frances Lankin, MPP, Hansard, December 4, 1995, page 1193.

Ms Lankin: You see, Premier, you've actually hit the point right on the head. I'm glad you quoted that, because I and my colleagues believe in the need for restructuring in the health care system. But you know what? We would go about it in a different way. We would go about it in a way which cares about --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I can't hear you. It's not a great time for a conversation, regardless.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Why is the clock stopped?

The Speaker: The clock was stopped because I considered the government to be interjecting at that point in time.

Mrs Marland: Oh, okay. So now we know --

The Speaker: Again, it's not any good to have a conversation. If you want to talk about it, we'll talk about it after.

Ms Lankin: We believe in restructuring that puts the patient first. Change is needed, but it doesn't have to be this way. Change doesn't have to mean that women are lying in hallways giving birth, waiting for hours to give birth. Your changes have moved ahead so recklessly and without regard to the impact that you are jeopardizing our health care system because Ontarians sooner or later, if they have a substandard public system, will go and buy the services somewhere else. You are setting us on a track to a two-tier system. You are jeopardizing Ontario's health care system. You are the one who's putting the system at risk.

Change is needed, but it doesn't have to be this way. Please understand the consequences of your actions. Please step back from your ideologically driven commitment and look at what is needed in the health care system.

We can help you and we will help you, but you've got to have the guts to stand up and say you've made a mistake, that the system is in jeopardy and that you're going to take another look at it.

Hon Mr Harris: The ideology we are following is that I quoted to you from Frances Lankin in Hansard. It's also the ideology on CBC, Howard Hampton:

"Are there too many hospitals in Toronto?

" Howard Hampton: You can make a case for the rationalization of the hospital system in Toronto.

" CBC: Right. So you don't need all the hospitals, do you?

" Hampton: No, you don't."

That's the ideology we are following. In making that ideology, let me assure you that while 16% to 20% of the people agree with your way of doing it, I think 80% of the people in this province agree that if our way of putting people first, of putting the patient first --

Ms Lankin: You're not.

The Speaker: Come to order, member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon Mr Harris: -- of putting women first, of putting modern health care services first, that in fact --

Ms Lankin: You're not putting women first. Don't you stand here and say you're putting women first. You're not.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Beaches-Woodbine, I warn you to come to order. I won't warn you again.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. One of the main reasons my constituents sent me to Queen's Park was to fix a welfare system that was not working for recipients nor taxpayers. My constituents in Niagara Falls want a system of last resort that helps people get back on their feet and into the workforce.

The workfare program under way in Niagara region is one step in the right direction. But we also want a fair system, one that would ensure that the decisions with respect to eligibility are free to be challenged. Given the scope of changes to our welfare system in Bill 142, some of my constituents have been led to believe the right to appeal will be taken away. Could you reassure them?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes, we've been quite distressed at some of the comments that have been made that somehow or other Bill 142 is taking away appeal rights. It is doing no such thing. As a matter of fact, one of the improvements the legislation brings to the appeal process is allowing those individuals who have appeals, who have questions about decisions that have been made, a fast track, if you will, an appeal process that they can access internally so they can get a decision within several days, rather than forcing them in all circumstances to go to a fairly lengthy legal process, which many of them are not comfortable with.

Mr Maves: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification.

One of the current policies of our social safety net allows a social assistance recipient who chooses to appeal an administrator's decision to be eligible to receive benefits while their appeal is pending. Will this be the same?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again the information that some of our critics are putting forward is incorrect. There will remain the authority from the tribunal to authorize interim assistance if there is a need. I don't think most people would object to the fact that people in need should get it. The question is, are they in need? The system is setting up the process to determine that, to ensure those people in need get the interim assistance they require during an appeal process.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it is on the subject of Ipperwash and the death of Dudley George. On Wednesday, September 6, 1995, hours before the shooting, your executive assistant was at an emergency meeting which included a very senior OPP officer who was in touch with the command post. Your executive assistant said to that meeting, "Premier, last night," and these were the instructions: "Out of park only -- nothing else."

When you were questioned on this last week, you indicated that Ms Hutton had told you she had been in touch with you in North Bay. We've checked the records and it now appears that's incorrect. It appears to us that you were in Toronto on Tuesday, September 5. The day before, which was Labour Day, you had been in a golf match. You were preparing for a cabinet meeting on September 5. The meeting of the cabinet took place on September 6.

Premier, are you prepared to correct the record and tell the public that you were in Toronto on the day in question when that comment was made by you, and can you tell us whether the meeting was face-to-face with Ms Hutton --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think when I was asked the question, I was given a date of the long weekend by the Leader of the Opposition. On the long weekend, I was in North Bay -- and I have checked the record now -- on the Sunday for the Mike Harris celebration of labour and family picnic and fireworks, which will be held this year as well on Sunday. On the Monday, you're right, I was with the Prime Minister playing in the Canadian Open golf event, and on the Tuesday I was in a similar event at Greystone.

The recollection of Ms Hutton is that she had relayed information to me by phone, and I think everything else is a matter of public record. Any results of any of the meetings that took place were in cabinet on Wednesday where, as you know, the Attorney General suggested and cabinet accepted the advice and the recommendation that we seek an injunction.

Mr Phillips: So you were incorrect in saying that on the day of the occupation you were in North Bay. As a matter of fact, it was on September 4, and you were playing golf at that time here in Toronto; you were not in North Bay on the day of the occupation. The following day, Premier, you were briefed on the cabinet meeting. The cabinet meeting on September 6 made a decision on Ipperwash.

Ms Hutton, at the emergency meeting, was very clear on your instructions: "Out of the park only -- nothing else." She said she got those instructions from you on September 5. Did you have a conversation with Ms Hutton on September 5? Did you have a meeting with Ms Hutton on September 5? And who else was at that meeting on September 5 when you provided those instructions?

Hon Mr Harris: It was a telephone conversation, so nobody else.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Last Wednesday the standing committee on government agencies deferred voting on the appointment of Norman Seabrook to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. In fact, it was a government member who made that motion, which all the members supported.

I believe they were too embarrassed to support this appointment, because it was clear from what Mr Seabrook has said in the past about the NEC and what he said at the committee that his appointment is totally inappropriate. The fact is, it is unbelievable and frankly appalling that you would even put his name forward for this commission.

You are the minister responsible. You put his name forward. The committee meets again tomorrow morning. My question is, will you withdraw Mr Seabrook's name before it comes up at committee tomorrow morning?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I don't presume to read the minds of committee members. It's a process of the House here.

Mr Seabrook's nomination represents an area that's in the Niagara Escarpment; it's a local area. He supports the plan. He supports the act. He doesn't wish to change the commission. He will give balance to the 17-member commission. I think if you look at the commission, people agree with the appointment of the chair. People think it's a good balance. They realize that we need to improve customer service and represent a wider variety of interests. I'm sure the committee just wanted to take time to look at it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Minister, you don't get it, do you? You don't understand how inappropriate Mr Seabrook is for this appointment.

Let me tell you what your appointee has said publicly: "Terminate the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act." Again: "The notion that the escarpment is a continuous natural environment is inaccurate and is indeed a falsehood." Again: "We question the legitimacy of the biosphere reserve designation." Again, as late as July 19, on CBC Radio: "Seabrook would like to see the commission abolished, its planning authority turned over to local municipalities.

He is researching the United Nations document designating the escarpment as a world biosphere reserve, a designation he suspects will lead to forced depopulation."

The Speaker: Question, please.

Ms Martel: Mr Seabrook doesn't represent a balance. He represents the furthest thing from what three consecutive governments have tried to do to protect the Niagara Escarpment. He is inappropriate --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Sudbury East.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know the committee will be looking at it tomorrow and they'll make a decision on that.

I would like to say that there have been a lot of local people in the area who have been affected by the Niagara Escarpment Commission in the past. They've been frustrated by their high-handed tactics and they'd like to see better customer service.

I can tell you that everyone who is appointed to this commission, whether or not Mr Seabrook goes through the process, firmly believes that the Niagara Escarpment is worth protecting, that it's a very beautiful part of Ontario, that it does represent something that's worth protecting. The act won't be changed. The commission will be in place and it will improve customer service.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We would like to give the minister the opportunity to rethink the use of the term "high-handed" with regard to the commission.

The Speaker: You can always give him that opportunity, I suppose, but it's not out of order.

HOME CARE

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): My question today is for the minister responsible for seniors in the province. On the weekend there was a story in the Hamilton Spectator concerning the home care program and the possibility that it would end the year $1.1 million in debt. I wonder if the minister can assure this House as well as seniors, the disabled and individuals recovering from surgery as to whether they will continue to receive support in the community program.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to respond to the member's question about the

article that appeared in the Spectator and assure him that our ministry has been aware of the circumstances in Hamilton-Wentworth. We want to reassure all members of the House who represent voters in that area that we have not and will not be reducing service delivery for home care in these communities.

We want to indicate, though, that this government has clearly set a standard for assessing the actual needs of seniors and the disabled in our communities. We've set up a province-wide accounting system so we can ensure that appropriate service is provided to those in need when they need it and where they need it and where they can receive the best care.

We want to reassure members, based on that article, that we are working with John Connors from the VON to ensure that the budgets of their actual expenditures this year are better suited to the needs in the Hamilton-Wentworth community in the subsequent year.

Mr Doyle: I'd like to ask the minister if he can assure the people of Hamilton-Wentworth that they're going to be receiving their fair share of funding in this care spending.

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to reassure the citizens of this area that of course they will get their fair share. Unfortunately, the Hamilton-Wentworth home care program has been running chronic deficit problems for a goodly number of years. This is an experience that was recognized by the previous two governments as well. But Hamilton receives its fair share. In fact, they are receiving $113.64 per capita funding in this program,

whereas the provincial average is $91. So we believe that we should be working more closely with the deliverers of service.

The CCAC is not up and running yet. We hope to have it up and running soon. It will bring more accountability with publicly elected members on it. Also, they have received $750,000 of additional funding for acquired brain injury and $113,000 of new home care dollars in several programs. We believe that not only will they be getting their fair share but that the program will continue to expand.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. It appears that while your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been downloading millions of dollars in new costs on to municipalities, you've been doing your share of dumping costs on to school boards.

The most recent example is the fact that your ministry used to pick up 50% of the cost of copyright licences, but this year you've told the boards they're on their own. You save $2 million; they have to pick it up. So much for the promise that there wouldn't be any more cuts this fall.

What is equally distressing is that you may well be using the $2 million you've saved on copyright licences to launch another mega advertising blitz. Is it true that you are about to launch a massive advertising campaign, at a cost of $2 million, to try to convince people that what you're doing to education isn't really disastrous for kids?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Once again the member opposite is engaging in idle speculation. Yes, our government will be communicating with parents and taxpayers this year on the subject of education. No, I haven't approved a budget for that program yet.

I can assure you, as has been the case in the past with this government, our spending on communicating with people will be much reduced from the spending levels of other governments, including the government represented by the member opposite when they were in power, and that communication will be very direct to parents about what is happening in their schools. It will not be the sort of political messaging that your government put out when you were in power.

Mrs McLeod: I was really hoping this minister would say it couldn't possibly be true that he was about to spend taxpayers' dollars spinning out to the public his self-serving, fact-distorting rhetoric to try and cover up what is actually going to be going on in classrooms this fall. I was hoping he would tell us he wouldn't be spending money on advertising when students in elementary schools are going to come back to face a new curriculum for which they have no textbooks. Minister, your $2 million that you're about to spend on advertising would buy a set of textbooks for about 2,000 classes across this province.

I was hoping you were going to tell me you weren't going to spend money on advertising when students are going to come back to secondary schools without desks, because your half-billion dollars in cuts to education have forced 30 to 40 students into single classrooms.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mrs McLeod: I want you to know that any money you spend on advertising is going to be completely wasted on the parents of JK kids who won't be going to school because there is no JK for them this fall.

Will you stop this advertising blitz so you can assure us that every dollar you spend will be --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Fort William.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I don't know where to begin to correct the member, who continually stands in the House and is inaccurate about the statements she makes. Every statement you've made so far this afternoon is simply inaccurate.

Let me tell you, we will be very pleased to communicate to the people of Ontario, to the parents of Ontario, about the new high standards for their students that will be right across the curriculum, from grades 1 to 8 in the province beginning this very year. We'll be glad to talk to them about a new funding model that will meet the needs of every individual student in this province. We will be very glad to talk to them about that.

I can assure you, and every member of this House, that unlike your party when you were in government, unlike you when you were in power, this will not be self-serving self-promotion. I know that's your only experience of this. This will be information for parents, for students and for taxpayers about a new and better education system for the province of Ontario. Our students have waited long enough.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. Yesterday you held a press conference about charitable gaming casinos. You said repeatedly that the purpose of this press conference was to confirm that charities were going to be receiving up to $180 million from this new charitable casino scheme. What you wouldn't tell us is what the government was going to get. Simple math from your documents of course tells us that it would be just over $1 billion.

You said repeatedly also that your announcement was about a fair share of charity casino proceeds to the charities. Today, the existing charity casinos produce revenues of just under $100 million and charities get about $10 million; that's just over 10%. The new expanded charity casinos and video slot machines are expected to produce revenues of just over $1 billion and charities are expected to get about $180 million, just over 10%.

Minister, how is this fairer? How can we view this as anything other than the government using charities as a front for a huge grab of money to pay for your ill-timed tax cut?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you for the question. I find it interesting, coming from a member who represented a government that did absolutely nothing about regulating the gaming industry and also did absolutely nothing about generating revenues for charities. As a result, we had close to 5,000 events from roving Monte Carlos last year that were completely unregulated, and only an average of 10% of the revenues generated from gaming tables actually flowed to those charities.

The new gaming framework is actually going to benefit charities, moving from $10 million which they receive right now from roving casinos to up to $180 million available to charities and not-for-profit organizations, something they support, something they deserve, something they've been waiting for.

Ms Lankin: The minister is great at not answering questions. First of all, you're absolutely wrong. Roving casinos were regulated. In fact, we tightened the regulations, and I don't dispute that it's useful to tighten them even further. You say we used to have 5,000 events. Now, with your new scheme, we're going to have 15,000 events a year. This is a massive expansion of gambling.

You said that you consulted. You may have consulted about how to dole out the proceeds. What you didn't consult on was where these casinos were going to be sited. You dictated. My community, the Beaches, is one of the communities that you've dictated will have a casino.

Minister, we have a meeting tonight. Residents Against Gambling Expansion are going to be holding a meeting and they want some answers. Will you consult with my community? Will you put in place a process that will respect the wishes of my community? Will you ensure that my community has a say on this? Will you guarantee that if the municipality passes a bylaw and says no, you won't use any ministerial powers to overrule that? We're meeting tonight. We want to know, will you listen to us? Will you promise me you won't force a casino in the Beaches?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Thank you for the question. I'll refer it to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, with respect to the areas selected, they're catchment areas. That's the second part of the process right now. Once we have people on the short list, they're to go out and consult with municipalities to find an appropriate location.

I really have to beg to differ with the member for Beaches-Woodbine with respect to her statement yesterday. She indicated, "The government refuses to consult with communities like mine in the Beaches about the fact that we don't want a charity casino there in the first place."

I draw her attention to the fact that the member invited Clare Lewis, who is the chairman of the Gaming Control Commission --

Ms Lankin: And he has refused to come to the public meeting tonight. How do you answer that, Minister?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Speaker, she invited Clare Lewis on June 17 to a public meeting at Bellefair United Church, which he did attend. He has already been there once to consult with the community in the Beaches.

I would like to --

Ms Lankin: That wasn't a public meeting. The public meeting is tonight and he has refused to come.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine, you must come to order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: My point is that Clare Lewis had been invited to a meeting already once on June 17. He attended to consult with the community. This has happened. The member had stated that this hasn't happened.

Second, I'd like to point out that when the honourable member was the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, back on November 3, 1994, she indicated that prior to the casino's arrival a number of concerns were expressed about issues such as increased crime, traffic etc. She said, though, "During this coming period I would encourage every community that believes it wants a casino to read this report. They will see the success of the casino at Windsor was no accident," and she's encouraging all communities to express --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to register my dissatisfaction with that non-factual answer and ask for a late show.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization, who also led this government's auto insurance reform initiative. As the MPP for Simcoe Centre, I have received several calls from constituents who are complaining of high auto insurance premiums because they have been assigned to the high-risk market, or what is known as the Facility Association, by their insurer. I recall hearing that this aspect of the auto insurance system was going to change. Minister, can you tell me when changes to the FA are coming so that I may report back to my constituents?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): To my colleague across the floor, there is a program called FA, or Facility Association as it's known in the industry, that was designed by the previous government to deal with high-risk drivers. That Facility Association framework unfairly deals with drivers because it places them in that high-risk market regardless of whether or not they are deserving to be classified as high-risk drivers, and that's wrong.

There's another component of the high-risk driver market which puts people in a Facility pool and charges them the same as a regular rate even though they are high-risk drivers and they should be paying a higher rate. That particular category is subsidized by the average Ontario driver, who is a good driver, and that's wrong.

We instructed the industry and consumer groups to come to grips with this issue and present to us options and proposals which would deal with re-establishing fairness and equity to the high-risk driver market. They have done that and my understanding is that the board of the Facility Association has agreed on these new rules and they will be in place shortly.

Mr Tascona: I'm pleased to hear that a plan to change the high-risk auto insurance marketplace is coming and that a new system will be in place in the near future. One of the criticisms I have heard from the FA drivers is that they had no idea they were at risk of being placed in the FA and have no idea how they can get out. Will the minister please explain the details of the new plan and its impact on drivers?

Hon Mr Sampson: Thank you again for the question. You are indeed right. One of the unfair components of the existing arrangement with respect to Facility Association is that drivers in Ontario don't know what they have to do to get in there and how they can get out of that particular market. We think that's unfair.

Part of the plan we have encouraged the industry to come to grips with is a mechanism so that insureds in Ontario will know what the rules are before they're placed in Facility Association, before they have the accident, before they are faced with the high insurance premiums.

We think that's fair, so our particular plan will eliminate the four-point system which has been wrongly designed by the previous government, and will be a fair and open process so that Ontarians and all Ontario drivers know what will happen if they get involved in accidents and how they will be able to get out of Facility Association should they be so unlucky as to have been awarded that cost.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

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

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues such as health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of health care, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature, which would allow the government to ram legislation through more quickly and have less accountability to the public and the media through exercises such as question period; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government now wishes to reduce the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its proposed rule changes, is attempting to diminish the role of the elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to reject these proposed draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have the following petition to the Honourable Minister of Environment and Energy, Norm Sterling, and the Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Mike Harris:

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins and furans, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, request that the Ministry of Environment and the government of Ontario take responsibility for the immediate cleanup of the fire site."

As the representative for that area, I add my name to those of these residents.

COURT DECISION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with over 300 signatures from the town of Innisfil.

"Whereas the Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas sections 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code relating to public nudity need to be clarified to provide better protection of community standards;

I affix my signature.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it's a timely one as we enter the long weekend.

"Whereas we, the consumers, feel gas prices are too high throughout Ontario;

"Whereas we, the consumers, support the Ontario Liberal caucus's attempt to have the Mike Harris government introduce predatory gas pricing legislation;

"Whereas we, the consumers, want the Mike Harris government to act so that the consumer can get a break at the pumps rather than going broke at them;

"Whereas we, the consumers, are fuming at being hosed at the pumps and want Mike Harris to gauge our anger;

"Whereas we, the consumers, want Mike Harris to know we want to be able to go to the pumps and fill our tanks without emptying our pockets;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce predatory gas pricing legislation in order to control the amount of money we, the consumers, are forced to pay at the gas pumps."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control of schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario."

I am adding my name to the petition.

COURT DECISION

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to appear topless in public;

This petition is signed by 25 people from Keswick, Sharon and Jacksons Point who are constituents of my riding of Durham-York, as well as others from Newmarket and Fenelon Falls. I agree with this petition and I have affixed my name on it.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas improper catch-and-release methods of sports fishing have a long-lasting effect on any body of water; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing netting during spawning season, which destroys spawning beds; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing the size of fish to be retained; and

"Whereas sports fishing of Lancaster perch and other breeds in the greater Cornwall area benefits local tourism, fishing and the overall economy and will continue to do so if managed properly;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Ministry of Natural Resources to impose a seven-inch limit on fish allowed to be kept, not to allow netting during spawning season, and also to reopen provincial parks in the area to encourage tourism and ensure vibrant, long-term sport fishing in our area of eastern Ontario."

I have also signed the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): The following petition was forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the national health and safety director of Canadian Auto Workers, on behalf of Buzz Hargrove, the national president, and hundreds of auto workers in the Windsor area. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

On behalf of my colleagues, I attach my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 369 people throughout the province. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A similar petition signed by scores of my constituents reads in part:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to appear topless in any public place."

WATER CHLORINATION

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I have a petition signed by over 240 of my constituents from the Milton area.

"Whereas the chemical substance chlorine was added to the people of Milton's pure well water supply in 1995; and

"Whereas the Halton region water delivery system in the town of Milton has received the regular maintenance and standard upgrade requirements outlined by the province and is supported by a standby chlorination unit sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat; and

"Whereas recent studies on the use of chlorine additives in drinking water have raised the spectre of chlorine as a possible cancer agent; and

"Whereas the people of the town of Milton overwhelmingly support the belief that a standby chlorination requirement is sufficient enough to prevent the spread of a serious bacterial threat;

"Be it resolved that the Ontario government grant the people of Milton's request for a variance allowing only standby chlorination to be used in treating the pure well waters supplying Milton's water delivery system."

I'm proud to add my name to this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The consumers in Ontario are furious about the high gas prices that are going through the province, especially in northern Ontario, where our prices are higher anyway. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the consumers, feel gas prices are too high throughout Ontario;

"Whereas we, the consumers, support the Ontario Liberal caucus attempt to have the Mike Harris government introduce predatory gas pricing legislation;

"Whereas we, the consumers, want the Mike Harris government to act so that the consumer can get a break at the pumps rather than going broke at them;

"Whereas we, the consumers, are fuming at being hosed at the pumps and want Mike Harris to gauge our anger;

"Furthermore we, the consumers, want Mike Harris to know we want to be able to go to the gas pumps and fill our gas tanks without emptying our pockets,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce predatory gas pricing legislation in order to control the amount of money we, the consumers, are forced to pay at the gas pumps."

I'm pleased to sign this petition as well.

PAY EQUITY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced Bill 136; and

"Whereas Bill 136 strips entitlements to employee status and therefore pay equity rights for home child care providers; and

"Whereas home child care providers are predominantly female; and

"Whereas home child care providers are one of the lowest-paid groups of workers in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136 and its implications for the Pay Equity Act."

As I'm in agreement, I add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"I strongly oppose the court decision passed in the case of Gwen Jacob, which ultimately allows women to expose their breasts in public places;

"I find this behaviour to be offensive both to myself and to my family."

This petition is signed by 10 men and women from Keswick and Queensville who are constituents of my riding of Durham-York, as well as others from Newmarket and Bradford. I agree with this petition and I affix my name to it.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of northern Ontario are also furious about the vehicle registration fee which the Mike Harris government is putting in as a tax grab on northerners starting September 1. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north, fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to revoke the new tax imposed on the north and convince the Tory government to understand that indeed northern Ontario residents do not want nor need the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 136,

An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi prévoyant le règlement rapide des différends lors des négociations collectives dans certains secteurs, facilitant les négociations collectives à la suite de la restructuration dans le secteur public et apportant certaines modifications à la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et à la

Loi sur l'équité salariale.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm pleased to resume debate and continue my leadoff remarks on Bill 136. I would again remind everyone who is watching that, as a result of the government's changing of the rules, there's no longer the same time opportunity there once was, just last week, to speak in opposition on behalf of the very people who are being hurt by the legislation this government brings down, limiting our leadoff speeches to 60 minutes from 90, and also all speeches after this to 20 minutes, and after seven hours only 10 minutes.

I say very clearly that anyone who thinks that 20 minutes for any one of us to speak to Bill 136 or Bill 99 or the downloading omnibus bill you dropped in the House here late Thursday, if you think that's fair, then you have a very strange definition of fair.

The Minister of Labour continually talks about being fair and wanting to be fair and balanced, but proceeds step by step to remove the word "fair" from legislation that affects workers, such as the Ontario Labour Relations Act, where the word "fair" was taken out of the

preamble. You say you care about being fair; you took the word "fair" out of there. They did the same thing in the new Workers' Compensation Act, the whole new bill they brought in, the bill that's bigger than the existing legislation. They took out the word "fair." I think that speaks volumes as to the agenda of this government.

I want to begin my comments today by referring to the newspaper clippings that come across all our desks. It's interesting: The first page of today's clippings is from the Globe and Mail. It's one of their front page stories and it reads, "Ontario Urged to Withdraw Bill 136 Pending Dialogue." That's from AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. That is the provincial umbrella group that represents all of the municipalities. It's much like the counterpart of the Ontario Federation of Labour, which represents all of the workers in this province under one umbrella group.

What's interesting about AMO taking this position is, first of all, it's mostly Conservative types who are on municipal councils who tend to go to AMO. As I mentioned yesterday, I was a member of AMO and I attended. I know the makeup of the partisanship, where there is one, and where it's not formal partisanship, an awful lot of municipal councillors and aldermen tend to be small-c conservatives. This government had every reason to expect that they would get the support of this group of people who tend to be open to the kind of messaging that the Mike Harris Tories give out. Yet look what happened: They took exactly the same position the Ontario Federation of Labour took.

What's fascinating about this is the fact that the two groups that are affected by Bill 136 are AMO and the OFL -- AMO representing the municipalities, OFL representing workers. That's who this bill addresses, and those are the very groups that have opposed this government's ramming through of Bill 136. Yet this government purports to be listening to the people. They aren't listening. If they were listening, then beginning today, the opening of this session, the Minister of Labour would have stood in her place and said: "We have listened.

We've listened to the Ontario Federation of Labour, we've listened to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and since they're the very people who are affected by this bill, we will withdraw it and we will commence dialogue with these partners to find an alternative that is acceptable." But that didn't happen.

Just a few minutes ago, orders of the day, wham. They've made up their minds. This train's going down the track. They don't care what anybody says. They don't care what anybody does. They aren't listening. What's so discouraging for the municipal councillors and aldermen and the representatives of the workers within the Ontario Federation of Labour is that they know the implications of what you're doing. You don't seem to, or if you do, you don't care -- but they know the implications. They know the results in our communities.

They know there's going to be chaos throughout the public service in our municipalities. They also know it doesn't have to be this way. That's what's so infuriating: It doesn't have to be this way.

Who will you listen to? Bill 136 affects municipalities and the workers who work for them. Both those groups have formally said, "Stop, pull back and talk." But you're not doing that. What does it take? Maybe the doctors should help out. They have the ability to get your attention. We know that the fact that the police are offside with Bill 136 has got you pretty upset. Sure, you'd just love to hive them off as a separate group and maybe give them some kind of exemption or exception, because you don't want that kind of dynamic, that kind of politics, where the cops are going against Mr Law and Order himself, Mike Harris.

But the police, just like firefighters, just like every other public servant who was taken in -- and I say that very clearly and very emphatically -- by this government's bumper slogan campaign in 1995 -- "Don't worry, we'll solve all the problems neat and quick. We've got the guts to do it. We'll even throw in a 30% tax cut to boot. Aren't we wonderful?" -- all those people who got taken in are now realizing they were betrayed.

We have had elected representatives of the police unions and elected representatives of the firefighters unions come forward in formal public hearings of committees of this Legislature and they have said very directly, "We were betrayed." When are you going to start listening? You say you're listening, but you're very good at the words, you're very good at saying what you think people want to hear and hoping that they never analyse it beyond that.

It's like the ads you ran earlier this year, all those fuzzy, feel-good kind of ads where Mike Harris was there with his casual shirt and jacket by the arena, walking along by the hospital. That didn't work. You thought it would. You thought that people were so -- what? -- easily fooled again that you ran those ads. They were an insult to the people of this province and they did a lot more harm to you than they did good.

But what does it take for this government to realize 136 is a disaster for our communities? Is it that you want the confrontation?

Certainly we can't help but think you do, that somebody back in the back rooms has determined a strategy that says, "Hey, if we can force some people to be fighting for their jobs and fighting for a decent standard of living, maybe we can be successful at labelling them again as special interests and put all the blame on them." It certainly seems that way, because when you listen to the words that the Minister of Labour uses, she talks about the fact that she wants to provide incentives for bargaining, that she wants to encourage bargaining and that she's giving the tools and processes for bargaining.

Yet there's no bargaining going to take place under this bill. This bill provides for the fact that if the employers believe they need the upper hand in negotiations, all they have to do is say, "We're taking it to the commission," the Dispute Resolution Commission, the handpicked commission of Mike Harris and his cronies. By the way, that also eliminates any ability for those workers to fight for themselves and fight for what they have fought for for years, because you will eliminate their right to strike.

While that may sound good to people, what it means is the collective agreements, the standard of living of those workers and their families, and therefore their communities, is going to go down.

You've done nothing to enhance the lives of working people and their families. You've done a lot to help those who already have a lot. They're doing quite well, thank you very much. Everything else you've done is to lower people's wages, lower their income, lower their standard of living. Even in 136 you take a shot at pay equity, the pay equity legislation, which is there to provide some assistance to whom? The very people who are most vulnerable.

Again you speak the words. The minister and the Premier stand up and with those calm voices say: "We care about people. We want to help them." It sounds an awful lot like Ronald Reagan. But the reality is, your legislation, as your attack on pay equity within Bill 136, will lower the standard of living of women in this province. That's a fact. The legislation is there to provide some assistance to those who are among the lowest paid in our province who do some of the most important work. That's what it does, and you're attacking it in 136; and you're eliminating the employee wage protection plan.

Neither of these has anything to do with Bill 136 and its purported reasons, by the way. This is just a drive-by shooting to take a shot at a couple of more opponents that exist out there, legislation that helps people, on your massive drive to this downloading.

Before I leave the employee wage protection plan, I just want to say there was a reason that was one of the first pieces of legislation that our government brought in. I think reasonable people would agree there was good reason for it and that there are better reasons for leaving it in place. With all the globalization, free trade, all the change that's happening around us, we've seen an acceleration in plant closures, office closures, relocations, bankruptcies.

In too many of those cases severance pay isn't paid that's owed, termination pay that's owed isn't given, wages that are owed aren't given, vacation pay that's owed isn't given. Workers have probably been told in the weeks and months leading up to the closure: "Don't worry. Just give us a few weeks. We'll catch up with you. You know we'll make it good. We've been a good employer. We wouldn't do that to you." Then they lower the boom: "Your job is gone, and the eight weeks of pay we owe you and the termination pay and severance pay are gone."

Oh, and by the way, while they're going through the process of deciding who gets how much money out of whatever is left over, particularly in the case of a bankruptcy, workers are at the end of the line. Creditors are taken care of. The banks, those suffering institutions that only made $6-billion-plus last year, are up near the front of the line. Other financial institutions are up near the front of the line. But you know what? If they don't get their immediate payout from that closure, they're still going to open the doors the next day. They've got more than enough cushion to survive this.

I'm not saying they shouldn't get their money -- they should -- but in terms of priority, a worker, who in many cases lives paycheque to paycheque, can't afford to be ripped off for weeks of pay or years of loyal service in terms of termination and severance pay. They can't afford that, so our legislation said: "Look, rather than you being at the end of the line all the time, hoping for a few crumbs which usually don't come, and ending up in debt, maybe losing your house, putting all that pressure on you" -- can you imagine being 50 years old, facing that kind of situation, wondering what your future is?

You're owed all this money, you've got all the bills stacked up, and a program that was there to help you has now been eliminated. At the same time you're reading headlines announcing, "Bank Profits At Record High." How would you feel if it happened to you?

We brought in legislation that said: "This is enough. This is the 1990s. Look, what we're going to do is we're going to provide a fund where those workers will get the money they're owed under the law. They've worked for it, they're entitled to it, and the government is going to provide them with the protection they should have, because who else has the power and the strength and the ability to do it for them?" If that individual can't do it, they need to count on the government to represent their interests. This is not a handout, this is money they've worked for and they're owed. They're owed that money, so there's a fund there where they are given the money they're legally entitled to.

For a bunch of law-and-order types you'd think that was a good idea, that the law is being upheld. Then the government will use the authority and power it has to go after the people who should have paid that bill. They may or may not be successful -- I don't know; you can't get blood from a stone -- but there's a lot better chance of the power of the Ontario government getting that money that's owed than there is of one 50-year-old worker who has been just tossed on the social scrap heap, probably for the rest of his life.

That's what that plan did. You killed part of it in earlier legislation and you kill the rest of it in Bill 136. I honestly don't know how you live with yourselves doing that. That's $25 million that you've taken, in my opinion stolen, out of the pockets of people who are in arguably the worst financial crisis of their lives, through no fault of their own, and they're legally entitled to what you're now going to deny them. Legally entitled; they worked for that money.

It's not even as if we're arguing for something new. It's already there. We did it. We put it in place. You're taking it away. Yet the Minister of Labour and the Premier have the audacity day after day to stand up and say, "We care. We care so much about people. We care about the most vulnerable and we're going to make our labour legislation the best there is and the health care the best there is," and on and on to the point where it's so nauseating that sometimes the toughest part of being in this position is looking at you people every day and listening to you saying one thing and doing another.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I feel sorry for you.

Mr Christopherson: I feel sorry for the people of this province. Never mind me. You don't need to feel sorry for me. I'll tell you who you ought to feel sorry for. It's the people who are being hurt by your legislation and the chaos you're going to cause in our communities as a result of Bill 136. That's who you ought to feel sorry for. Rather than talk about it, you ought to do something about it.

I want to finish off my opening comment with regard to AMO and why they've done this. It's interesting that on the front page of the Toronto Star the headline is "Laughter Greets Leach's Pledge." What was that pledge? I'm quoting from today's Toronto Star:

"The province's plan to pass more social costs on to municipalities won't hurt property taxpayers, Municipal Affairs Minister Al Leach insisted yesterday.

"But the reply that echoed back to him from a packed meeting of municipal leaders was derisive laughter."

These are not the kinds of people who do something like that lightly. If anything, they give ministers of the crown more than the benefit of the doubt. But they did it in this case because it's so patently untrue and unfair for this government to suggest that municipalities aren't going to be hit, and hit hard, as a result of your downloading. For the minister to say, "Don't worry, it won't cost anything," they knew that's not the case in all of their individual and collective municipalities. That's not the case.

How does that tie to Bill 136? Real neat. I've never accused your strategists of being stupid -- mean-spirited and a lot of other things but not stupid -- because the game plan here is, while your government is attempting to bludgeon municipalities and trying to set a political stage where they wouldn't dare raise property taxes to offset the cuts you've made, you provide them with Bill 136, where you were expecting and hoping, and for all I know, urging them to take that money out of the standard of living of the people who work in that community, who provide the public services.

Bill 136 makes sure it can be done because they don't have to bargain at the bargaining table. They just say, "No, we'd rather use the Dispute Resolution Commission." Zing, bang, it goes off to the commission, handpicked by Mike Harris, and they're bound by the decision that commissioner makes. You can't even have a judicial review, you've made it so airtight.

All of this downloading that municipalities are angry about and laughing at your minister for suggesting it's not going to cost anything is expected to be borne on the backs of the people who work in that community and who have committed no other crime than to get up and go to work every day providing public services in their community. That's their crime, and for that crime the sentence and the punishment of this government is, "Your standard of living goes down."

What is so infuriating is all of this is being generated, the cut in the first place to the municipalities, so you can find the $5 billion to pay for your tax cut; a tax cut which, at best, is giving the average working middle-class family a couple of cups of coffee a week while a lot of other people are doing very, very well, thousands of dollars in tax relief, an income tax gift. That's what's going on with Bill 136, and I'll be listening intently to people who suggest, in whatever way they want, that's not the case. We can quibble over details, we can split hairs, talk technicalities or talk the overall macro, but there's no doubt in anybody's mind that this is what's going on.

You have to find that $5 billion. You cut billions of dollars in transfer payments to municipalities, tell them they can't raise taxes, don't want them to lower services in the community and provide them with a legal mechanism to take that same money, that same 30% tax cut, out of the pockets of those working middle-class families. That's the name of the game, that's what's going on with Bill 136 and that's why the Ontario Federation of Labour and its affiliates representing working people are so angry.

AMO is angry that you're going to cause all of this turmoil and chaos in their communities. We know that well over 90% of all collective agreements are settled without any need for a strike or a lockout. In the vast majority of cases there's an excellent working relationship between employers and their representatives, the unions that are there, whether that's private or public sector.

You're going to cause that turmoil because you want to force the municipalities to take the money out of the workers in that community because you know that if the municipal councils have to raise property taxes, they're going to blame you. You're going to be held accountable for property tax increases, and that's why you don't want the money to come from anywhere else other than from workers.

I have about 10 minutes left. I want to refer again to an

article that Judy Darcy, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, wrote in the Globe and Mail just a couple of weeks ago. In part she says: "I guess the Harris government's oft-repeated claim that it wants `less government interference in people's daily lives' doesn't apply to workers." Isn't it interesting, when you want to use that bumper sticker slogan, "Get the government out of people's faces, get the government off their backs, get them out of the way," it doesn't apply when you feel the need to interfere in a huge way in the standard of living of hundreds of thousands of working people.

You don't like red tape and you don't like bureaucracies, but you're creating two new ones. We don't know how many millions of dollars these commissions are going to cost. As I said yesterday in my remarks, this commission is there not only to make these decisions that gut collective agreements -- and by the way, they can do whatever they want to a collective agreement; it's not just wages. They can do anything they think is appropriate and nobody can appeal the decision.

Not only is that what they're going to do, but they are going to be handpicked by the cabinet to ensure that there's no doubt that is what they are going to do, and after they make that decision, this government expects them to take the heat. I realize I'm repeating myself from something yesterday but I think it's so crucial to say and it's such an important part of all of this.

Just as we watch the health minister stand up when he's asked questions about closing down hospitals and the chaos it's causing because of the way you're doing it -- not the fact that we have to make changes; that's a given. It's the way you're doing it and the rush and the lack of consultation and consideration for the implications that every time one of us asks the Minister of Health a question about that, he stands up and says: "I didn't make that decision. That was the commission. They did that, not me, not Mike Harris, not Elizabeth Witmer. Oh no, we didn't do that. We wouldn't do that. Oh no.

It's that commission. They're making all those decisions, and what can I say? The law prohibits me from saying anything about it."

They conveniently forget that they not only appointed the commissioners, but it's their law. We didn't have such a commission until they brought in -- remember it -- the omnibus bully bill, Bill 26. That's what gave life to the Health Services Restructuring Commission, that evil body that somehow Mike Harris doesn't have to take ownership for. That's where that came from and these two commissions are spawned from the same thinking.

Every time there's a controversial decision that comes out of that commission you can bet apples to dollars that the Minister of Labour is going to stand up and say: "I didn't make that decision. It was that commission. They did it. It's those bad people. We wouldn't do that."

We need to remember, Bill 136 -- this is the moment in time, right now, second reading, there's only one more reading to go and it will happen quick enough given your new rules -- that's where those commissions come from. They are created by this government, they will be appointed by this government and they're bloody well going to be held accountable by this government.

I want to read one more quote from Judy's

article because I thought it was one of the best pieces I've seen in terms of exposing what's really going on with Bill 136. She goes on to say: "This dictatorial approach is supposedly necessary to get Ontario smoothly through its current restructuring."

Remember, that's the guise that the government's putting forward as to why they're doing this: "We have to do this because, you know, those irresponsible public sector workers will just strike at the drop of a hat, because that's the way they are." That's the suggestion this government makes.

As Judy points out in her article, if that's what they're arguing, she says, "But if the bill is to facilitate restructuring, why does it cover all workers in essential services (hospital workers, firefighters, police) permanently?" If it's only for a transitional time, why is there anything in Bill 136 that's permanent? We know why. And why is it being imposed on groups of workers such as those in private sector nursing homes who are not even involved in the government's restructuring?

As I pointed out yesterday, she says earlier in the column that she's not aware of any strike that was caused as a direct result of restructuring. So not only is your argument bogus, but even if it had some validity, what you're doing cannot be rationalized in terms of responding to that concern. None of it washes, but you want to keep hoping and praying that it's all attached to your bumper-sticker slogan which says, "We have to streamline and provide for the efficient transition," and all your other spin phrases, and you want to encourage bargaining. Oh, it sounds so reasonable when presented by the minister, truly it does. They just want to help people.

Look at their track record. Of course they want to help people. Look at the big benefit they gave to the poorest of the poor in our province. Their first hand up was to cut their income by 22%. What is their helping hand to injured workers? They're going to cut their pension contributions by 50%, cut their income by 5%, and oh, by the way, out of the $15 billion they're cutting from injured workers, $6 billion goes back to their corporate friends.

They took away successor rights from OPSEU and caused that awful strike that didn't need to happen because you're getting ready to privatize everything, so when you do privatize that public sector -- and you'll sell off the most profitable to your corporate pals -- the collective agreement doesn't go with it; standard of living, wages, benefits don't go with it; seniority doesn't go with it; certainly those employees don't go with it. Other workers out there get the benefit of being able to bid the lowest wage they can live by in order to get that job. That's the world you're creating with that piece of legislation.

Then, of course, you moved on to non-union people, people who don't have the benefit of a collective agreement. The Employment Standards Act, the bill of rights for workers, you've started to gut. You're only halfway through that process. You took away rights from people who have no protection at all, the most vulnerable.

Somehow through all of this you expect people to believe that you're only doing this to protect -- well, you like to separate people by saying there's the taxpayers and then there's everybody else, as if the taxpayers are a separate group. Among those taxpayers are hundreds of thousands of public sector workers, and there are also, unfortunately, tens and hundreds of thousands of poor people. There are also an awful lot of people who may be earning a middle-class income who are watching their education system under attack, their health system under attack, who are about to see chaos in their communities, services cut.

If you've got a middle-management job and you're thinking, upon listening to any of this, "None of that has anything to do with me; they're always worried about those who have nothing and prepared to take away from anybody who has anything at all," the reality is that if you've got a half-decent paying job in this province, you'd better hope that other people are getting a half-decent wage or you won't be able to justify what you're getting.

You will if you own the company or you're on the board of directors, but if you're in middle management somewhere, you'd better pray that somebody else is making something close to you or you're next, because you won't be able to justify earning the pay you're so pleased with right now. God bless you, go for it, that's fine, but don't think that other people can have a decent standard of living taken away from them and you're going to remain untouched.

For those who may earn less than those in the public sector who are saying, "They have already got everything, they've got the union to protect them and everything is fine for them and they've got all these benefits," I urge you to think about this: The only chance you've got, if you don't have that collective agreement, of getting decent pay and decent benefits and decent protections is if there's a strong labour movement fighting for you. Mike Harris sure as hell isn't going to fight for you, you can count on that, and he's not going to pass one piece of legislation that makes your life any better.

He has proven through two years of governing that you don't count. So you've got a vested interest in this.

I would suggest that it's in everyone's interest to care about Bill 136 and what it is going to do in our communities. That's why the Ontario Federation of Labour is standing up for working families, and that's why AMO has had the courage to stand up and say no to this government, no to this attack on standards of living, no to the attack on the quality of life in our communities and no to Bill 136.

Minister of Labour, withdraw this bill and stop the confrontation and chaos we're heading into.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): That speech would be very impressive if it had been made 20 years ago when there was an entirely different situation in this province than there is today. The fact is that the last time I spoke to the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour and asked him the percentage of people working in this province who were involved with unions, he gave me the answer, which I already had a feeling for in terms of the range of the percentage. He told me it was 33%.

We just listened to the yelling from the former speaker. Actually, his speaking is always more effective when he doesn't yell, but he chose to yell. He is still talking about 33% of the workforce in this province. Isn't it interesting that he is speaking as a member of the New Democratic Party which, when they were the government, actually violated to the greatest extent that has ever happened in the history of this province the legally binding position of unionized employees, with the social contract, the first time that contracts had been thrown out the window? There was no respect, no regard. Nothing was sacrosanct.

Now he's standing up and saying that everything we're doing in Bill 136 is against the unions, against everybody and everything. Of course that's the role of opposition, and I respect that this is the role he wants to put on the record in this place. But some of the accusations about what our government is trying to do with Bill 136 frankly are inaccurate. He is suggesting that we have a hidden agenda, for example. There is no elimination of successor rights, and there's no unilateral removal of bargaining rights.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mrs Marland: I will continue the rest at the next opportunity.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm certainly glad to have a short opportunity to compliment the member for Hamilton Centre on his remarks relating to Bill 136. He always speaks with