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

October 23, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L113 - Wed 23 Oct 1996 / Mer 23 Oct 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TRISHA ROMANCE

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

RIVERDALE AGAINST THE CUTS

JOE TERSIGNI

NORTHWOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

PROJECTS IN MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

REGULATION OF LOAN AND TRUST INDUSTRY

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

LABOUR LEGISLATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

VISITOR

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO-QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

GO TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES

ONTARIO BREAST SCREENING PROGRAM

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AGRIFOOD EXPORTS

ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

PETITIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

EDUCATION FINANCING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

RENT REGULATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

MANDATORY INQUESTS

POVERTY

FIREARMS CONTROL

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

RENT REGULATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

OPPOSITION DAY

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I'd like to read a letter from one of my constituents.

"Dear Mr Cleary:

"My mother relies on a dialysis machine three days a week to keep her alive."

To get treatment, she has to travel to Ottawa. That's three hours' travelling both ways. The woman continues by expressing the stress, the cost and the inconvenience of travelling in the winter months. Many of my dialysis patients have to travel either to Ottawa or to Kingston.

In recognizing that the minister promised this past spring that a provider had been chosen for Cornwall but then reneged because the provider his ministry had selected was subject to a court battle, my constituent adds that dialysis "patients go through enough as it is," and adds that she is willing to do anything humanly possible to make sure that the dialysis machine is in Cornwall.

The Minister of Health made a promise last April 24. The people are anxiously waiting in the Cornwall area -- the 32 patients who rely on dialysis weekly -- so I'm asking today that the minister please deliver on his promise that dialysis will be available in Cornwall as soon as possible.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is on health care cuts in Cochrane North and the Tory broken promises of the election campaign. I want to direct my statement to the Minister of Health, Jim Wilson.

According to a health care reform blueprint, 30 beds will be closed at Sensenbrenner Hospital located in Kapuskasing and 18 beds at Notre-Dame Hospital in Hearst. These cutbacks will be a devastating blow to the health care of the people of Cochrane North, and so far we have no indication that the savings will go back to the hospitals or to the community.

These recommendations are based on the average stay for a patient in the hospital. The indicator for Ontario establishes 646 patient-days per 1,000 residents. However, I would like to remind the minister that this average does not in any way reflect the conditions prevailing in the riding of Cochrane North, served by these hospitals, and the resources available.

Three weeks ago I was hospitalized at Sensenbrenner. I would like to take this opportunity to thank particularly the doctors there, Dr Ng, Dr Ayeni, Dr Fryer, Dr Seward, Dr Boucher, Dr Beatty, and all the nurses, laboratory technicians and staff, who are doing a tremendous job in providing excellent care and treatment to their patients despite the major funding cutbacks being made by this government in the health care system.

I urge the minister to guarantee that all savings from hospital restructuring within Cochrane North be reinvested in the riding and not used for the 30% tax break to wealthy friends of the Conservative government.

TRISHA ROMANCE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I recently had the honour of being present when Niagara-on-the-Lake artist Trisha Romance was presented with the Order of Ontario by Lieutenant Governor Henry N.R. Jackman.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank Trisha for her contribution to Ontario's heritage. As everyone in this House no doubt knows, Trisha Romance has become known throughout Canada, the United States and the world for her gentle watercolours of family life and family traditions. She is represented in over 600 galleries in Canada and the US alone. All 10,000 copies of one of her most recent works, Evening Skaters, were sold out within weeks. Without a doubt Trisha's work has become a tribute to the love of family and the joys and innocence of childhood experiences we can relive when we look at her paintings.

People may not know that Trisha Romance has suffered severe headache pain over the past several years which produces seizures and blackouts. Doctors have yet to find a way to alleviate the problem. Yet she continues to paint and celebrate family and life.

On behalf of the government of Ontario I would like to acknowledge Trisha Romance's contribution to the heritage of Ontario, and I personally wish her well.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Over the past year I've been rising in this House to ask the Minister of Northern Development simply to do his job: to support policies and programs that will enable us in the north to maintain services taken for granted in the south and to help foster the economic development we so badly need.

This so-called advocate for the north has proceeded in the opposite direction: slashing funding and programs, eliminating staff at a much higher proportion than our population warrants and closing down regional offices at breakneck speed.

Now we learn of another blow, one he hopes to quietly slip by us. His ministry is planning to remove its funding for the annual northern health recruitment tour in southern Ontario, which means that the future of this important venture will be in peril.

Surely the minister does not need to be reminded of the success of this program. Dr Christopher Giles of the Atikokan General hospital was recruited on one such tour. He has told me that four out of five physicians on staff in Atikokan were recruited through this program, and not only were they recruited to the north but they stayed -- in Dr Giles's case for nine years now. Many of the 40 northern communities that participate regularly in this yearly tour will tell the same story.

Minister, this is a success story you should be proud to support because it works. You're closing our hospitals, laying off our nurses and cutting our funding to long-term care. Don't add to this crisis by taking away our ability to recruit doctors. Reverse your decision today.

RIVERDALE AGAINST THE CUTS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Yesterday I shared the pride of Metro Toronto residents in being chosen as the best city in the world by Fortune magazine. Many of us already knew that. Recognition is long overdue.

But it was appalling to see the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism all puffed up, vainly trying to take credit on behalf of his government. That would be like the Vandals trying to take credit for the glory of Rome.

John Barber points out in the Globe and Mail today that it is those very qualities of life here in Metro, so valued by those "special interests" at Fortune magazine, that are imperilled by this government's shortsighted social and economic policies. He lists "good schools, effective transit, a commitment to social justice and environmental protection."

I would add to that list an excellent accessible health care system, good child care facilities, sports and recreation programming, a rich cultural life and much else endangered by this government's hell-bent drive to finance a big tax cut for the rich.

That's why this Saturday I'll be proudly joining my constituents -- moms, dads, kids, teachers, students, nurses, child care workers, the unemployed and many others -- who have formed a grass-roots coalition called Riverdale Against the Cuts. We will be joining the thousands and thousands of other Metro residents who will be marching to Queen's Park this weekend to say, "Enough is enough and stop the tax cuts for the rich in Ontario."

JOE TERSIGNI

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): It's my pleasure today to be able to rise in the House and recognize the achievements of a teacher from Guelph who has recently been rewarded with an award for excellence in teaching Canadian history.

Joe Tersigni is a teacher at Our Lady of Lourdes Secondary School in Guelph and was one of 12 winners in the first annual awards presentation. This award, organized by Canada's national history society, was presented to Mr Tersigni in recognition of his innovative, exciting and relevant methods for teaching Canadian history.

He has organized what is called the Forum, an annual event that brings together young people to listen and share views on key topics affecting Canadians. Joe himself chairs the event, but students manage it and gain hands-on experience in coordinating, budgeting, design and the promotion of the materials for advertising. Keynote speakers have ranged from prime ministers to journalists to native leaders.

As well, he has organized the Canadian Political Speaker Series, also organized and managed by students, with keynote speakers invited from the federal, provincial and municipal arenas.

Joe Tersigni exemplifies the kind of dedicated teacher whose creativity and enthusiasm provides a positive influence to all his students, teaching them to become involved and knowledgeable citizens in our democracy.

NORTHWOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Northwood Neighbourhood Services is a community organization located in my riding of Yorkview.

Northwood Neighbourhood Services has excelled in providing a variety of programs of adult education services, ranging from Red Cross seminars to small business startup sessions. This important community organization also provides vital life skills programs such as stress management courses.

On October 24, the city of North York will join with Northwood Neighbourhood Services in celebrating their Adult Education Day. Mayor Mel Lastman has officially proclaimed October 24 as Adult Education Day throughout the city.

I am sure all members of the House recognize the importance of adult education services, particularly to newcomers and senior citizens. Education is a lifelong commitment and provides endless opportunities to grow and share with all members of the community.

On October 24, Northwood Neighbourhood Services and all members of the community will share together by way of a classroom open house, entertainment and a sharing of experiences. I ask that all members of the House join me in wishing Northwood Neighbourhood Services every success on this special day, as well as expressing our ongoing commitment to the importance of adult education in my community and throughout Ontario.

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to set the record straight with regard to the issue of the Metro Days of Action. First of all, the reality is that if there was nothing happening out there across the province, the media would be reporting that no one cares and therefore suggesting that the people of Ontario accept this hard-line Harris agenda, and they don't.

The second thing is that it would send a message to the government that not only should it continue but it should go even harsher and further than it's already doing.

It's also not just labour. Although labour is an important and crucial partner in this, it's not just labour; it's also environmentalists, seniors, youth, injured workers, child care workers, housing activists, community sports volunteers, teachers, the disabled. We call that the community; you call that special interests.

We'd like to know, when did your corporate friends and your banker friends stop being special interests? They stopped being special interests when you formed the government in this province. I can remember the Bay Street protesters came out against the policies of the NDP, and they came out just like everybody else. They cheered and they chanted and they carried placards and they sang. The only difference is they were all wearing striped suits and they arrived in taxicabs.

The fact of the matter is the Metro days of protest, just like those in Hamilton and in Kitchener and in London, are the exercising of the democratic rights of a free people to have free speech and free assembly, and that's why we support those Days of Action.

PROJECTS IN MUSKOKA-GEORGIAN BAY

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to inform the House of several projects in my riding that demonstrate the ability of community organizations to make an investment in their own futures without financial support from the Ontario government.

First, there's a new waterfront project in Midland. That includes the launching of a new Rotary trail and pavilion. It's all part of a revitalization of the downtown Midland area. This is a first step in what will become a $100,000 investment to develop the shoreline, every dollar being invested by the Midland Rotary Club from funds raised in the community.

Another community-based project in my riding is the Gravenhurst Rotary Club's contribution of $50,000 in cooperation with Easter Seals to fund the installation of an elevator which will assist the disabled at the Gravenhurst Opera House. This will enable a number of individuals to attend performances there for the first time.

A third initiative is in the town of Bracebridge. That municipality has turned to local businesses and asked that they sponsor the annual maintenance costs for local parks. So far the response has been very promising, with Scandura Canada taking up the maintenance of Bracebridge Bay Park.

All of these projects are an example of local solutions and initiatives which press ahead without the need for provincial government funding.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

REGULATION OF LOAN AND TRUST INDUSTRY

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): In our May budget, I said we would eliminate overlap and duplication in regulating the loan and trust industry. With the actions we are announcing today, we are delivering on that commitment and making government work better for Ontarians.

This government will keep our promise to put an end to an unnecessary layer of rules on trust companies. Under Ontario's current requirements, known as the "equals approach," all trust companies in the province must comply with Ontario's rules even when they are also regulated by the federal government, and in some cases by other provinces. Having two sets of government regulate an industry like this just doesn't make any sense. It is costly to taxpayers and it hampers the industry's ability to respond to the changing needs of individual and business customers.

We believe that regulation should be undertaken by the level of government best positioned to do it. Through our actions, we will ensure that consumers continue to be protected and small businesses have greater access to capital while enabling trust companies to compete without the unnecessary constraints and costs of complying with multiple sets of rules.

Today I am releasing a discussion paper on the future of trust company regulation in Ontario. Through this we are seeking input on important issues, including more efficient ways of protecting consumers and whether Ontario should continue the provincial incorporation of trust companies. We would like to hear from all interested parties. I have asked my parliamentary assistant, Isabel Bassett, to consult with the industry, business, consumers and other stakeholders on how best to improve the efficiency of the loan and trust regulatory system.

This government is committed to eliminating red tape, overlap and duplication. We are committed to improving the climate for business and job creation in Ontario. The announcement I am making today delivers on those commitments. It is good for consumers, it is good for business and it is good for jobs.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the announcement by the minister and say that we are anxiously awaiting the details of the proposal.

We'll be guided by two principles, Minister. One is clearly that in regard to things that we can do in Ontario to assist our -- I don't like to use the jargon -- world-class financial community to grow and be competitive globally you will find support from our caucus. We are fortunate in Ontario to have financial institutions that can compete globally, and it is a unique benefit. We'll also be guided by a second principle, and that is making sure the consumer has adequate, reasonable protection. Those two things will be the two principles we'll be guided by.

We were expecting that the announcement today might have dealt with the Ontario Securities Commission, which also is of significant interest to Ontario and in particular to our financial community, in that I know in the budget you indicated your plan to proceed to some form of national commission, and for whatever reason that seems to be stalled. The problem we have is that the securities commission appears to be lacking --

Hon Mr Eves: Then ask the question.

Mr Phillips: The minister is saying, "Ask a question." I suggest to you, Minister, that it's your responsibility to come forward with solutions. We certainly, on a daily basis, hear of a lack of resources at the Ontario Securities Commission. You talk about protection of consumers. It is being jeopardized, we gather from reports, by a lack of resources, that the provincial government is taking, I gather, $30 million or $40 million more from the commission than it is allocating in terms of resources for that commission to make certain we protect the consumer.

As we look at these proposals, we expected today to see the minister acting on what we think is a serious problem at the securities commission, according to press reports. If it is not his intention to move forward with some form of a national securities commission, then get on with providing the resources at the securities commission to provide comfort to the investors in Ontario.

Hon Mr Eves: Then ask a question in question period. I'd love you to ask that question. Your federal counterparts seem to be dragging their feet.

Mr Phillips: I would just say to the financial community out there, the Minister of Finance is barracking across the hall at us, when we would like some answers from him on this. For us, it is a serious problem in our financial community right now that needs addressing.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I want to add my comments. On December 8, 1985, I was the minister responsible for bringing in the new loan and trust legislation that's currently in place. I should tell the minister that at that time there was great discussion across the country. New Brunswick adopted our particular legislation verbatim, including our typos. Alberta told us they had no interest in having and no need to have any further and additional regulation of their trust companies.

I remember the minister of the day, Ms Elaine McCoy, telling me that it was an unnecessary intrusion into the financial community. You should know that several months after that, Alberta had the largest trust company failure in the history of this country and immediately started to scramble to get their legislation on a par with Ontario's.

I have no problem whatsoever with having one set of regulations for the trust industry. I think it would be a great move. My only caution is, make sure you don't go to the lowest common denominator instead of the highest common denominator. If we can get legislation that Ontario is happy with, that provides the necessary protection, great. The danger is that to get accord with all the other provinces they will want to in some way diminish consumer protection because they may feel that will inhibit their particular institutions from functioning and being competitive. I think the number one goal of this legislation has to be consumer protection.

If we can get unanimity across this country so we have regulations that are fair, that are stringent, that are accountable, that's a wonderful thing and I commend the minister, if he can do it. I wish him well. But having gone that route, I can tell you it is fraught with problems.

As I say, I don't think we should in any way give up the kind of consumer protection in the current legislation. If we can improve it, all well and good; if we can't, we should resist it.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm happy to respond initially on behalf of our caucus to the minister's announcement, to say that I think he will understand if we come at this with just a little bit of scepticism. We certainly would support any genuine attempts by the government to eliminate overlap and duplication in any area, certainly in this one in terms of regulating the loan and trust industry.

But we have seen too many times those code words used for just simply getting out of the business of regulating, so we will look at this with some attention. Our finance critic will obviously follow this with some interest, as will our critic for economic development and trade.

We believe it is important to create a climate in this province where businesses are working efficiently and where consumers are indeed protected. If the scope and the intent of this move by the government is to simplify those procedures in a way that maintains the protection for consumers and at the same time streamlines the reporting mechanisms or the regulations as they apply to businesses and to loans and trusts, in principle that's certainly something we would welcome and support.

It is very much in keeping with the efforts we took when we were the government to simplify processes for business in terms of moving towards a unified filing system for small businesses, and the next steps that now we're happy to see the government taking in terms of the reporting mechanisms, although I don't remember them giving us credit for that.

But it is happening, and we all of us want to see a climate in which business is being held accountable, in this case loan and trust companies. Also, where overlap can be eliminated between the provincial government and the federal government, that's something we would support in principle.

We would also ask that when this issue is looked at the ministry and the government do not forget that there are a number of outstanding issues in the whole banking industry and in the whole trust industry that businesses, small businesses in particular, have been raising, such as the access to capital. The member for Fort York has been doing some work in this area. We will be interested in making sure that as the government looks at trying to streamline these processes it is also making it more possible for small businesses, as the minister says, to have greater access to capital, because we know that at the heart of any recovery of our economy in this province lie small businesses.

It's important that the barriers that have continuously been put in the way of small businesses, particularly by banks and to a lesser extent by trust companies, also be addressed. We would look forward to seeing that issue addressed in this discussion as much as simply the streamlining of rules as they apply to loans and trust companies.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Like my colleague the member for Dovercourt, I generally support what the government is doing. As the member for Dovercourt and others have said, if we're able to simplify the process between the federal and provincial governments, it makes a lot of sense. It puts some certainty in the industry and is something we need to encourage.

With regard to the comment where you talk about putting "an end to an unnecessary layer of rules on trust companies," what's unnecessary and will consumers in the end be protected? In your comments you alluded to that, that consumers would be protected, but I can tell you that our party, the New Democratic Party, will be watching that closely because we believe that banks, quite frankly, have had a pretty free hand on some of these issues, and we would not want to see the trust companies ending up in the same position as banks. They've had far more power than they should have had.

The other issue you talk about is that your parliamentary assistant, Isabel Bassett, is going to go into consultation with industry, business and consumers. Although I have confidence in your parliamentary assistant -- she's a member with some integrity in this House -- I wonder how seriously the process is going to be taken by the government, because up to now you have not been very good about listening, to be blunt. On all of the issues the government has dealt with, it's been an attempt to look as if you're consulting, but in the end the government does what it wants and really doesn't listen to the public.

I hope that you take the recommendations of Isabel Bassett seriously and that you give her the power she needs to go out and do meaningful consultation so that the needs and concerns of consumers and industry and business are brought back to the table, and that you act on those. We'll be watching for that.

The last point you make is in regard to the government generally "improving the climate for business and job creation in Ontario." Read the notes. Retail sales are down dramatically in Ontario over the last couple of months, even with your big tax break that you gave last June, and unemployment is up. All stats are proving that the revolution in Ontario is dragging the economy down, not pushing the economy up. I remind the minister that things are not well in Ontario under the Common Sense Revolution.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to remind all members that signs are out of order in this place. We will remember that.

VISITOR

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would like the Speaker to recognize that a former member, Mr Ross McClellan, is in the chamber today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Minister of Health. Mr Speaker, I'm wearing a button which states, "Patients Matter," something the Minister of Health seems to have forgotten.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I'm not going to say that, but you're not supposed to wear buttons or put up signs. That's the deal. No, you go right ahead.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Does that button say, "Patients Matter"?

Ms Castrilli: It says, "Patients Matter." Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for that clarification.

Yesterday in the House this minister stated that it is "obvious to all members of the public, and certainly to members of this House, that patients come first." Thus the button. "That's been the theme and the thrust of everything we've done as a government." Is that still your position?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Yes.

Ms Castrilli: The minister, however, by his actions proves otherwise. He speaks one thing but does another. We have, as a result of the minister's cuts yesterday, both the Peterborough Civic Hospital and St Joseph's Health Centre announcing that they will be closing 32 acute care beds and reducing operating time. On top of that, 97 staff will lose their jobs, 46 of whom are nurses, the people who care for patients.

The local hospital boards issued a media release in which they state that this government's cuts will, and I'll quote, "ultimately lead to fewer admissions, shorter lengths of stay and noticeable differences" -- noticeable differences -- "in the care which is available at the two hospitals." Does the minister not agree and recognize that his cuts in Peterborough will harm patient care?

Hon Mr Wilson: I was in Peterborough last week and had a chance to speak with a group of about 11 physicians who fully explained to me the restructuring initiatives that the community is undertaking to improve its hospital system. I can absolutely guarantee you that the press release you have says neither that quality will suffer nor that services are going to diminish and patient care will suffer. The confidence that these physicians and hospital administrators who were present had inspired me to conclude that Peterborough was well on its way to doing the type of restructuring that's required in the hospital system throughout the province.

Ms Castrilli: I find that unbelievable. The hospital says clearly that there will be noticeable differences in the care patients will receive. Those are the words of the hospital boards. It's obvious that patients don't matter to this minister. The only thing he cares about is finding the dollars and cutting them from our hospitals. Peterborough is not alone, it would not surprise you to hear. There are stories now of up to 50 beds that will be closed at the hospital in Belleville.

Clearly the minister was not thinking of patients when he promised a 30% tax cut; he was not thinking of patients when he slashed $1.3 billion from hospitals, a move that will result in 15,000 nurses being laid off across Ontario; and he certainly was not thinking of patients when he cut a deal with the doctors that will force patients to pay out of pocket for medical services now covered by OHIP. I ask the minister again, is it more important to fund a tax cut than it is to ensure that patients can get the care they need and deserve? Will he not admit that money matters more than patients matter?

Hon Mr Wilson: The tax cut is a very important part of the government's policy and it's an important part of health policy. As you know, one of the greatest of the five determinants of health is employment. The tax cut is our way of creating jobs in this province. Employed people tend to be healthier people. Therefore, I fully endorse the approach the government has taken to the whole comprehensive package of patient care, which includes an increased health budget, contrary to what your federal cousins are doing in Ottawa, where they've cut health care in this country, and particularly to Ontario, to shameful levels. We've increased the budget against all odds.

Secondly, the employment of more people, which will happen as a result of the tax cut, is definitely good for health care, for the system and for the individuals, and it for the most part prevents people from becoming patients in the first place, because employed people are healthier people.

Ms Castrilli: I wonder if people from Peterborough and Belleville will actually believe that.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My next question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Tell her to wake up.

Ms Castrilli: If I might have her attention, while my first question tried to point out to the government that patients do not matter to it, my next question will show that there is at least one political party in Ontario that believes that people matter.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Nepean, come to order, please.

Ms Castrilli: I'll be more specific: People matter to this party. This week Ontarians are celebrating Library Week. The minister plans to celebrate by bringing in legislation to curtail access to public libraries and by charging user fees. Yesterday your parliamentary assistant said that libraries play --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Put the question.

Ms Castrilli: I'm trying, but it's very difficult.

The Speaker: Put the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If the member for Sudbury would go to his seat and heckle, it would make him more in order. To the member for Downsview, you have 15 seconds. Put the question.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the minister's parliamentary assistant said that libraries play a vital role in helping people learn and grow. I'd like to ask the minister whether she believes that the move to bring in user fees and the statement made by the parliamentary assistant are not in contradiction to one another.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): No, I don't believe they are. This government is committed to a very strong province-wide public library system. We have been consulting with the library community in the last nine months to look at the whole issue of governance and user fees, and we'll be coming up with some recommendations in due course.

Ms Castrilli: The only reason libraries are being forced to consider bringing in user fees is because of this government's 40% cut to library transfers last year. Let me list some of the other cuts. Cuts to libraries are also forcing them to lay off staff, close branches and reduce opening hours. They are now locking the door to people's access to information, information they will need if we are ever to achieve our goal of lifelong learning. Every government since Confederation has believed that providing full and accessible libraries is in the public interest and is a basic good.

Does the minister agree that libraries are the great equalizer, that whether rich or poor, people should be given that right to read and to learn without being charged to rent a book?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I want to reiterate that this government is committed to a very strong province-wide library system. That's what we're working towards. My ministry is committed to working with the library community to identify ways by which it can become more effective and more efficient to ensure that we continue to have a province-wide system for all of the communities in Ontario, including those remote communities in the north.

Ms Castrilli: Books are the keys to knowledge and this government is closing the doors.

But there's something even more disturbing. That is, in addition to considering charging for borrowing books, the cuts to libraries are forcing them to sell their buildings off as corporate advertising space. We may very well soon see outside the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library something that says "Export `A' Library," or "Pizza Pizza Library."

This Library Week the minister has been making announcements and speeches on the great importance that libraries play in our society. If the minister really believes what she reads, if she really believes what she says, won't she return the 40% cut to libraries, and won't she open the doors of libraries to people of all economic background, and won't she please accept the fact that people matter more than money?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I can certainly assure you that the last time I was at the public library the doors were open, and the doors will continue to be open.

As I have said, when municipalities are funding in excess of 90% of the operating budgets of public libraries in this province, they have asked us to provide them with the tools by which they can become more self-sufficient. Certainly the Metro reference library announcement to seek private-public partnerships is an excellent example of what they're doing: doing just that to keep their doors open to the public.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I wanted to ask this question of the Premier, but once again the Premier is not here, so I'll have to go to the Minister of Labour.

Exactly one year ago, your government rammed through your "progressive" view, you say, of labour law. Everybody else in the province said they are the most regressive changes and the most regressive attack on working people we've seen in 30 years.

We warned you at the time that it was going to provoke people out there in the public, and it has. It's provoked days of protest in London, in Hamilton, in Kitchener, in Peterborough and here in Toronto now. It's also provoked all sorts of situations on the picket line. Today, here in gallery, there are 90 members of the Steelworkers who have been on strike at S.A. Armstrong in Scarborough. They've been on strike because the employer has followed your encouragement and has brought in scabs to take their work away. This matter could have been settled months ago, but because your government encourages scabs, it hasn't been settled.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Put the question.

Mr Hampton: I want you to tell these workers here today, Minister, why did you pass a law which encourages scabs to come in and take their work away? Why do you encourage scabs in the workplace?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I want to tell the leader of the third party that as a result of the passage of Bill 7 last year, we have a very positive economic climate in this province. In fact we have 99,000 more people employed today than we had one year ago. That is 70% of the new jobs that have been created in Canada. That is a very positive number.

We are continuing to see optimism among the employer community. I would just indicate to you that 92% of the business people who have been interviewed believe that the business climate is going to get better or stay the same in 1998. Those are the individuals who are creating the jobs, the jobs that you say are important for people in the province. I would just indicate to you that Bill 7 has had a very positive economic impact on the lives of people in this province.

Mr Hampton: I am not surprised by the answer. There was not one mention of workers who are seeing scabs cross picket lines. There was not one mention of the kinds of confrontations you have created, not one mention of the kinds of hardship you are creating out there.

The fact of the matter is that as a result of your legislation, the amount of time lost to strikes and lockouts in this province has gone up four times. It's gone up from 354,000 lost days to over 1.38 million lost days. That doesn't even take into account the CAW strike at GM and it doesn't take into account the CUPE strike in the Niagara Peninsula, which is a strike against your cuts.

Minister, I'm going to ask you again: 1.38 million lost days due to the kind of confrontation you have provoked. What do you have to say to these people? Many of them have worked 10 or 20 years for S.A. Armstrong --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Look at the people in the gallery you are beating up.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Labour.

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the leader of the third party, what I have to say to you is that despite the fact that there had been predictions that there would be chaos in the province because of the huge number of collective agreements that were going to expire this year, almost 4,000 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane North, you're out of order. You're out of your seat. You're going to have to come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to the leader of the third party that despite the fact that there were these predictions, we continue to enjoy a climate in this province where the majority of collective agreements are peacefully resolved. In fact, in the first eight months of this year we only had 79 strikes. When you were in office during the same period you had 110.

Mr Hampton: Once again, only a Conservative Minister of Labour would brag about 1.38 million person-days lost to strikes and lockout. Only a Conservative Minister of Labour would brag about that kind of statistic.

I still haven't received an answer from the Minister of Labour. This is about real people. This is about real people who are simply trying to defend the wages they have worked hard for. This is about real people trying to defend their pensions. This is about real people trying to defend some control over their working conditions. That's why they're on strike. They only want what every average, ordinary person in Ontario would want: the chance to work at their job, the chance to enjoy a decent wage, the chance to have some control over their working conditions, yet your government is denying them that.

Your government is more and more encouraging the use of scabs to drive down the wages of working people and to drive down the working conditions of people.

The Speaker: Put the question.

Mr Hampton: Would you tell these people, many of whom have 10 or 20 years' seniority, why you're doing that to them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: To the leader of the third party, first of all, I want to make it abundantly clear to you that one strike is one strike too many. The very reason we introduced Bill 7 was to restore the balance in labour relations. We introduced democracy into the workplace, we introduced the secret ballot vote, and I would indicate to you now that employees have the opportunity to cast a secret ballot for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I indicated, one strike is one strike too many. I would simply continue and indicate to you that we are seeing, as a result of the legislation we have introduced, real growth in the province. However, I would also indicate to you that the reason we're seeing more days lost in strikes this year, let's be perfectly honest, is the OPSEU strike. That's what has created the additional number of days lost.

Getting back to the economic outlook, there is an indication that this year we are seeing more business plant construction in this province. We've had six quarters where we've seen nothing but success. That's going to translate into more jobs, and it won't be 10,000 lost like you lost; it will be hundreds and thousands more jobs because of the policies we have introduced.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: This is all about what business wants, not about what is good for workers and what workers want. That's very clear from your answers. It's very clear whose side you're on.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My second question is for the Minister of Labour as well. It concerns the issue of workplace health and safety. On September 24, less than a month ago, the minister said in a speech that as part of the government's plans to make prevention part of the Workers' Compensation Board mandate, the functions and staff of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency have been integrated into the WCB.

But these staff members, with more than 200 years of health and safety experience and expertise, were shocked on October 10, when they were told they would all receive layoff notices either this month or in December.

Minister, I'm not sure I understand. You say prevention is important. You say these people are going to be integrated into the Workers' Compensation Board. Can you tell us what's happening? Why would you be laying these people off if prevention is important? Why would you lay off 200 years of health and safety experience and expertise if prevention is important?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would indicate to the leader of the third party, getting back to where he was coming from, that we're creating jobs. If we take a look at the issue you've just mentioned, you know we are talking about an operational WCB issue. We're talking about two unions which are involved in discussions. Much of the issue you were just talking about needs to be resolved internally by the people who work at the WCB.

Mr Hampton: You can try to put this off and say that this is something the union has to sort out. The fact of the matter is that CUPE and the OPEIU have held meetings, and CUPE Local 1750 agreed at a meeting on Monday to welcome the agency's staff into their union if they become Workers' Compensation Board employees.

It's now up to you, Minister. Are you going to lay off 200 years of health and safety expertise and experience or are you going to do what you said on September 24? Are you going to take those people into the Workers' Compensation Board so that real occupational health and safety work can continue? It's up to you now.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate one more time to the leader of the third party that this is an internal operational matter that involves two unions. As far as I know, the issue is going to be resolved internally.

Mr Hampton: It's a very simple question. These people worked at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. You shut that agency down. You said back in September that you would take them into the Workers' Compensation Board so that good occupational health and safety work could continue, so that work in terms of preventing accidents and deaths in the workplace could continue. The unions have sorted out their issues. When are you going to announce that all of these people are going to continue to have jobs and will continue to make an important contribution to workers' health and safety in Ontario? The ball is in your court. When are you going to make the announcement?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Let me just mention one more time that this is an internal WC matter. It is an issue that needs to be resolved between the two unions, I understand it is being resolved and no one at all is being laid off at the present time. For you to indicate that anybody is being laid off at the present time, you know that's not true.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday in this House the member for Eglinton stood up and praised the city of Toronto, in fact took credit for the city of Toronto being named the best city in the world. Also, a colleague on your side stood up and praised the city of Etobicoke for being a great city.

I find it astonishing that there's a report in the paper that says your ministry official -- I'm not quite sure; it could be Crombie, whatever he's doing, who may be the real Minister of Municipal Affairs or the phantom minister -- is planning to abolish the six local governments and establish a mega-Metro. Minister, is Mr Crombie doing this with your approval? Are you going to abolish local government in Metro?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We're planning to eliminate duplication and waste that occurs at all levels of government: this government, municipal governments and regional governments. We're looking at a number of options as to what direction the GTA and Metro should go in. There haven't been any decisions made as yet. The option the member mentioned is obviously one of them, but it's only one.

Mr Colle: When will we be able to question Mr Crombie? When will the real Minister of Municipal Affairs come before a committee? Even your own caucus is wondering who is running your ministry. Here we go with your own colleagues saying, "It's a great city and we have great local government." How could you be planning -- your officials are even drawing up the maps -- to abolish local government? In fact they're saying you've made a deal with Mel Lastman, or maybe Crombie has, to make him the supermayor of mega-Metro. Who's in charge, you or Mr Crombie? How do we get at Mr Crombie?

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Crombie has been appointed as chair of the Who Does What panel to provide this government with advice. The panel is made up of community experts from across Ontario. Mr Crombie's panel does not make any decisions; it makes recommendations. All decisions that happened in the past were made by this government and they will continue to be made by this government.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I have in my hand a news release from the WCB announcing that there will be a 5% cut in the employer assessment, the premiums that employers pay to WCB, dropping them to the lowest rate since 1986.

Interestingly the news release doesn't talk about how much this $6-billion gift to your employer friends will add to the unfunded liability. As you know, the unfunded liability, which has no taxpayer money in it -- it's entirely funded by employers -- has been dropping steadily for the last two years, since the NDP legislation was brought in, which was opposed by your party and the Liberals. But despite this decrease in the unfunded liability, you continue to use this as an excuse to go after disabled workers and take away $15 billion of benefits to those injured workers.

The Cam Jackson report estimated that the $6-billion giveaway to your employer friends would increase the unfunded liability to $18 billion. Minister, will you confirm that the gift to your friends is going to increase the unfunded liability to $18 billion?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): We are preparing to reform the WCB and at the end of the day we're going to have a system that does indeed deal with the needs of both the employer and the employee community. We will continue to be able to provide the needed benefits to the injured workers, and at the end of the day as well we are going to reduce the assessment rates that are paid by the employer community, because as you know, our assessment rates are presently the second-highest in Canada. It's going to make us more competitive.

Mr Christopherson: The reality is that to pay for this $6-billion gift to your corporate friends, you're going to take away $15 billion from injured workers. The cabinet document that I leaked a couple of weeks ago shows very clearly that's what your intent is. At the end of the day, what you're going to do is have your employer friends have more money, not just from the tax cut but from this premium cut, and disabled workers in this province will have less than they deserve.

Minister, you are also not committing to holding province-wide public hearings yet on that WCB legislation. You just today, I understand, through a news release before the House, announced that the occupational health clinics will be staying open. We're going to take a lot of credit for that because it was the labour movement and our party and injured workers that fought that issue and said to you, "You will not close those clinics." I say to you now that you're afraid to hold province-wide public hearings on the WCB changes because you're afraid that you'll have to bow again to public pressure.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Put the question.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, I'm asking you two things:

(1) Will you commit to province-wide public hearings before you ram through that legislation, and (2) until that is done, will you reverse this $6-billion gift to your friends?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm very pleased to indicate to the member opposite that yes, there has been a news release issued today and we will continue to support the occupational health clinics, after a very thorough investigation of the clinics, which actually you people had supported when you set up the royal commission yourself. We have now done our evaluation and we have determined that they will continue to operate.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): While I'm standing, if you'd please stop the clock, we have the ex-member for Willowdale, Mr Gino Matrundola, in the public galleries today. Welcome.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. My constituents high atop Hamilton Mountain have been following with great interest the ongoing discussions between the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the local municipalities regarding the restructuring initiatives, and as you know, resolutions have been passed by the region and the city of Hamilton detailing their proposed ideas. Would you provide us with an update on the Hamilton governance issue?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for his question. It is true that this ministry is actively monitoring the discussions in Hamilton-Wentworth. I met yesterday with the mayor of Hamilton and with the chair of the region. The mayor and the regional chair have requested that the province provide some assistance to resolve their impasse, and I have agreed to do so.

As I have said in the past many times, I would prefer a solution that is supported by local citizens and not one imposed by the province, and I still do, but we will send in some help for them.

Mr Pettit: I too have been pushing for a local solution, because it seems to me the last thing we wanted was a solution imposed by the province. But we've obviously reached an impasse locally. Therefore, if the province is prepared to get involved, would you please tell the people of Hamilton Mountain and all the citizens of Hamilton-Wentworth exactly in what manner?

Hon Mr Leach: I'd like to thank all the members from Hamilton-Wentworth, as a matter of fact, for their interest in this issue. The government intends to appoint a mediator to help in this issue. The terms of reference are now being developed. I hope the mediator will be in place as early as next week. Again, I would like to stress that the province would like to see a local solution worked out between the political leaders of Hamilton-Wentworth, and hopefully the mediator will assist them in doing that.

ONTARIO-QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): My question is to the Minister of Labour, l'honorable Elizabeth Witmer. On October 10 you told Ontarians that the Ontario-Quebec construction labour issue was resolved, and on the same day, at the Ottawa Construction Association gathering, you said an agreement in principle was reached with the Quebec government.

Last week, I asked you a question but I did not get an answer, so I will put the question as simply as possible, and this time I hope I will get a straight answer. Minister, Ontario workers and contractors are still waiting and, honestly, we all have doubts about Quebec respecting any agreement. They have sidestepped agreements in the past. We all know what happened in the 1994 agreement, and once again Quebec has managed to gain some time and seemingly calm the unrest that was brewing up in Ontario. Can you tell us how you will assure Ontarians that Quebec will respect this agreement without having this government introduce any new legislation?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member opposite, I am aware of the fact that you have met with our staff today and I appreciate the concerns that you are bringing forward on behalf of your constituents. Certainly we are all concerned, because of what has happened in the past, that we continue to work forward as aggressively as we can to make sure that the terms of the agreement are implemented.

My officials, as I have said to you before, are working with the officials in Quebec to ensure that come January 1, 1996, the terms that we have put in place will be operational and we will have a more level playing field which will enable our workers and our contractors to gain access into the province of Quebec.

Mr Lalonde: I would like to ask the minister how her government intends to recognize such trades as labourer, plasterer and painter. In a recent statement, the minister said that Quebec will recognize these trades. To my knowledge, there is no way to recognize these three specific trades, other than taking the worker's word. What will be the Quebec criteria for issuing a competency card to labourers, plasters and painters, and what will be the criteria that the Ontario government will use to recognize these three trades?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Those are exactly the types of issues that are now being resolved. The criteria are being established and that is the work that is now ongoing between the officials in Quebec and the officials in Ontario. As I indicated to you, it is certainly our hope, and we know it will happen, that come January 1, all of those issues will have been resolved, the criteria determined, and we will be able to move into Quebec and compete there for jobs on a level playing field.

GO TEMPORARY HELP SERVICES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Your government's attack on workers continues; it seems to know no bounds. You have just recently sent out layoff notices to about 2,100 GO Temp workers, mostly women and people from visible minorities, because you have decided to privatize the GO Temp service in the government of Ontario.

What you're doing with this is that you are taking money that is being used now to pay a decent wage to these 2,100 people and you are saying that in privatizing, 42% of that money is going to go to the private temp agencies, most of which are American companies. The workers are being told that if they want to have any hope of keeping their jobs, they should just register with one of these companies. At best, they can hope to get a salary that's about half of what they're making today.

Minister, what I want to ask you is, why are you so intent on putting 2,100 people out of work, mainly women and people from visible minorities, so that private American companies, temporary agencies, can get the benefit of those profits?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): As the member opposite knows, this government has undertaken on behalf of the taxpayers and the people of Ontario to look at all of the services that are delivered internally. One of those services is the GO Temp agency.

The Go Temp agency within the provincial government delivers clerical and secretarial services and many other kinds of services on a temporary basis to all the various ministries. The charge last year to the various ministries was over $42 million. That's the kind of cost that's associated to the taxpayers of Ontario for this service.

This government believes that through other, alternative means of delivering this service, we can reduce that considerably. The objective in particular, I might say, is we believe at least $5 million a year can be saved to the taxpayers of Ontario, and yet the service will be a good service, an even better service, to the various ministries. That basically is what this is all about: saving the taxpayers considerable expense.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you know better than I this is not about saving money; this is not about providing better service. If it was about providing better service, you would listen to the people in the Premier's own office who, we understand, are singing the praises of the GO Temp agency that you are now in the process of shutting down. This is from your own Premier's office.

If you're so interested in saving money and in continuing to provide the high quality of services that these GO Temp employees provide, why have you set up the request for proposals in such a way that you have not considered, and you will not make possible the consideration of, the employees themselves to bid for this contract?

What I want to ask you is, if you are serious about continuing to provide the high quality of service and not simply transferring money from the wages of workers into the profits of corporations, will you reconsider at least that element of allowing employees to bid for this contract, reopen the contract process and let the present employees who are interested in bidding and showing you that they can save money and keep the process in place and keep the jobs there bid for that contact?

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite may not consider a $5-million-a-year saving to the taxpayer to be significant, but I can tell you that this government is looking at all alternatives.

In terms of the specific question, the members from GO Temp are certainly permitted to be involved in the tender process. The tender process closed on September 30. The employees would be welcome to be involved. Indeed many of the employees registered in GO Temp are also registered with other agencies, and in the final analysis my suspicion is that many of them will be achieving employment with the province of Ontario through those agencies.

It was an open process, a fair tender process with considerable interest, and it will involve a $5-million saving, at least, to the taxpayers of Ontario. I think that's the proper way to go.

ONTARIO BREAST SCREENING PROGRAM

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, I was very pleased to learn last week that Barrie's Royal Victoria Hospital has been selected as a site for the expansion of the Ontario breast screening program. My constituents are very excited about these enhanced services for women in my community. Could you provide us with details as to what these new services will include?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm very pleased to respond to the question from the honourable member for Simcoe Centre, my neighbouring riding. Indeed, Royal Victoria Hospital will be selected as one of the new sites for breast screening as part of the $24.3-million announcement that the Premier and I, on behalf of the government and all members here, made just recently.

We want to encourage women aged 50 years and older to enter the program, to register with the program and to have regular breast screening. The program specifically offers a mammogram to women, special instruction with respect to breast self-examination and a complete breast physical examination by a specially trained nurse.

In addition to the honourable member's indication of Barrie being one of the sites that we've identified so far, there also will be new sites in Chatham, Sarnia --

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

Hon Mr Wilson: -- Listowel, Niagara Falls, St Catharines, Belleville, Trenton, Ottawa, Timmins and Bracebridge, and honourable members will note that this creates new jobs for highly trained nurses in this province.

Mr Tascona: Thank you, Minister. This is unquestionably great news for the residents of Simcoe Centre and for the other new sites across the province which you've outlined.

As I understand from your recent announcement, the government has committed to the establishment of additional sites for the future. What guidelines can you provide us with in respect to the time frame for these next steps?

Hon Mr Wilson: The 11 sites, including the city of Barrie, have already been notified that they're the preferred sites with respect to the tender that went out, the request for proposals, and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, which coordinates the Ontario breast screening program, will be putting out another request for proposals. The announcement the Premier made of $23.4 million is to ensure that we have some 30 new sites established over the next four years.

The details of the next round of site selection will be available, I hope, very shortly from the research foundation, and we'll get on with the job of increasing what has become an extremely valuable program to the women of this province.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I would like to quote from a document called the Mike Harris Task Force on Rural Development. It was produced in November 1994, well before the government members held the seats they now have, so just as an excerpt to refresh their memories, beneath the subtitle "Ministry Funding," the report says: "Under a Mike Harris government, agriculture will regain its fair share of government support. That is why there are no cuts to agriculture programs in our policy plan, the Common Sense Revolution."

Minister, is it your opinion that a clear promise was made by yourself and your Premier Mike Harris, prior to coming into power, that you would make no cuts to agriculture? Simply a yes or no would suffice.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Cornwall for that question because he well knows there have been no cuts to agricultural programs. As a matter of fact, there's about $35 million of new money: $15 million in Grow Ontario and a rebate of the provincial sales tax of over $20 million. So there have been no cuts to programs; in fact there are new programs.

Mr Cleary: I would just like to reminisce a little with the minister about the last 16 months. He cancelled the dairy audit program; cut the investment strategy program; reduced the tile drainage program; closed or amalgamated nine field offices; closed the Brighton veterinary lab; cancelled the Niagara tender fruit program and the agricultural museum funding; he has offloaded on commodity groups; he has wiped out lab and research programs; he has reduced international marketing programs; he has cut the municipal drainage program; and cut the funding for Foodland Ontario promotion -- $85 million in cuts.

I know he reannounced two ethanol plans and the farm tax rebate, but Minister, the estimates really show that there was $480 million in agriculture and now approximately $421 million, a reduction of 12%.

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

Mr Cleary: When you were in opposition, you were so critical that agriculture did not get its fair share. How can you possibly say that you have not violated your election promise when the balance sheet shows you have?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: As a matter of fact, as we speak, we have some Japanese investors buying Ontario soybeans -- not just signing and hedging; they're buying Ontario soybeans.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I'm sure the honourable members in opposition would like to know this. For the first six months, we have had a 14% increase in agrifood exports from Ontario. I'm very pleased that the honourable member for Cornwall recognizes $3 million to an ethanol facility in his riding, another $5 million to an ethanol facility in Chatham. Mr Speaker, I recently --

The Speaker: The question has been answered. Order.

Ma question est simplement celle-ce : quelle assurance pouvez-vous donner à la population francophone de la province qu'elle pourra continuer à être desservie dans sa propre langue suite à un tel transfert de responsabilités ?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I believe the duly elected representatives who are elected to municipal office are responsible people, and I think if they have a responsibility for delivering those services, they would continue to deliver them.

Hon Mr Leach: I can assure the honourable member across that we have no intention of affecting the delivery of French services anywhere in the province. If services are presently delivered to any municipality in the province, then I can assure the member that they will continue to be delivered.

AGRIFOOD EXPORTS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I understand that agriculture and food products from this province are being exported all around the world and that one of our goals is to significantly increase our agrifood exports in Ontario. Could the minister update us on where we stand with our agrifood shipments for 1996?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I wish to thank the honourable member for Oxford for his question, and it's a very timely question. Yes, our exports of agrifood products from Ontario are well over $2.6 billion in the first half and will be some 15% improved over last year. Indeed we are very proud.

When I was in the Pacific Rim in April, I invited a number of groups, and they have come over here and are purchasing Ontario pork, Ontario beans, Ontario tobacco, Ontario ice wine and many other products. So we are very proud of what we've been doing in agriculture.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you for the update. Could you please tell us what regions account for the biggest increase in agrifood exports?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The agrifood exports primarily are going to be in grains. The United States is still our major purchaser. However, the Pacific Rim is now a very important player, as is eastern Europe and as is all of Europe in both the red meats and the grains, and we are very pleased to see double-digit increases in our exports.

ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. One of your predecessor's slash-and-burn decisions was to shut down all of the regional testing labs of the Ministry of Environment. As you know, water testing was one of the services they provided. The assurance was given, when concern was raised about that: "Don't worry. The private sector will step in. Private labs will provide the service."

I wasn't so sure of that, so I wrote and asked your ministry if they would provide me with information as to what private labs would step in in Thunder Bay and what they would charge. I now have that information, Minister, and I think you should be aware that of the 27 tests that were formerly done by the regional lab in Thunder Bay, only two could be done at a comparable cost by the more competitive bid. Some 16 of those tests will cost more than double what the cost was in the ministry lab, and one of them will be five times as much.

I wonder if you were aware of this, and I wonder if you're looking at these facts. Do you know how much this rush to privatization is going to cost?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Yes, I'm aware of that.

Mrs McLeod: My supplementary question relates back to the issue of increased costs, and the burden they would be for small business people like trailer court owners, raised with the minister about two weeks ago by my colleague from Kenora. That may be why the minister is now aware of it. I believe the minister said, in response to my colleague at the time, "We're going to look at some ways of helping them with those costs."

I have another letter addressed to me, also from your ministry, which makes it quite clear that one way you are going to help people with those additional costs incurred because of your privatization move is to reduce the level of water sampling that is required.

The auditor has already said that we have a real problem with water testing and water quality. We have already had a serious outbreak related to water quality. I don't know how you can possibly consider reducing the water testing that is done in this province. Will you give us an assurance that you are not going to reduce the level of water testing and further damage water quality to pay for your privatization moves?

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm quite willing to look into that.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday we passed Bill 49, the bill to change the Employment Standards Act. You have steadfastly maintained that you have not taken away any rights in that bill. I want to ask you a very straightforward question.

Given the fact that workers now can only claim back for six months, not two years, that there will be a minimum threshold -- you haven't told us what it is -- and that there will be a cap on how much workers can claim when they've had money taken from them by employers, I want to know how you can stand in your place, in the face of that evidence, and still maintain that you haven't taken away workers' rights in the Employment Standards Act.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): It was not yesterday but on Monday of this week that we had an opportunity to pass Bill 49. We are now embarking on the task of totally reviewing the Employment Standards Act. That has not been done since 1974. Certainly our intention is to ensure that vulnerable workers are protected.

We are going to establish basic standards. We are going to take a look at what sectors need to be covered by the Employment Standards Act. As you know, there are emerging sectors, such as in the field of telemarketing, and I would indicate to you that if you take a look at Bill 49, the legislation that has just been passed, we have done exactly what we said we would do: We have made sure that as a result of the changes we've made there has been no change to any minimum standards. However, we have made it easier and quicker for employees to obtain money owed to them.

Mr Christopherson: That is the difficulty we have with this government. No matter what we point out as the truth, you're prepared to stand up and say exactly the opposite.

I'd like you to answer my question, Minister. It's a very straightforward one. Please address yourself to my question. I am calling you on whether or not you've taken away rights. In that bill, workers cannot claim for two years any more, only six months. I say that's a takeaway. Your bill now will have a minimum threshold where one doesn't exist now. I say that's taking away rights. Your bill will put a cap on how much workers can claim. I claim that's a takeaway of workers' rights. I want you to either stand in your place and say that I am wrong factually or finally admit that you have taken away workers' rights in the Employment Standards Act.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As a result of the changes we have made, we are now ensuring that workers have access and will be able to get the money owed to them much more quickly. That's what we've done.

Mr Christopherson: You can't answer the question, can you? You sit there and take away workers' rights and say you're not. It's disgusting, absolutely disgusting. She's laughing; she thinks this is a big joke.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Hamilton Centre, please come to order. The question will be answered by the Minister of Labour and then we're finished with question period.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I realize there is an audience today.

I would certainly indicate again to the member opposite that what we have done is something that enhances the rights of the most vulnerable workers in this province. We have ensured that the collection of the money owed to them is actually going to take place after you did away with the collection agency. We are going to privatize the function. I would indicate to you that at the end of the day, as a result of the changes we have made, workers are going to get their money, more of it, much more quickly than under the legislation you people had.

PETITIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have the following petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario appears to be moving towards the privatization of retail liquor and spirit sales in the province; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario; and

"Whereas the LCBO has an excellent program of quality control of the products sold in its stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores; and

"Whereas the LCBO has moved forward with the times, sensitive to the needs of its customers and its clients; and

"Whereas the LCBO is an important instrument for the promotion and sale of Ontario wines and thereby contributes immensely to grape growing and the wine-producing industry;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its plan to turn the sale of liquor and spirits over to private liquor stores and retain the LCBO for this purpose."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in full agreement with its contents.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I wonder if Andy Brandt signed that petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from literally hundreds of people from the city of Timmins who protested the other day when Premier Harris came to Timmins. The petition reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has broken its election promises by slashing millions of dollars from the education budget;

"Whereas by slashing the education budget these cuts are resulting in larger classes, less help for special needs students, loss of junior kindergarten, fewer resources for the classroom and teachers to help students;

"Whereas by amalgamating school boards into superboards community voice and needs will not be heard or addressed, resulting in a less dynamic and productive education system less reflective of individual community needs;

"Whereas should the future cuts continue, these will encourage the downward spiral of the present quality of education."

I've signed my name to this petition. It's signed by approximately 500 people.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario concerning drinking and driving.

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives, while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I agree with this petition and therefore affix my signature to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition from residents of my community who are concerned with the possible removal of rent control, and I wish to read it to the assembly.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has announced its intention to remove rent control from apartments that become vacant so that landlords can charge whatever rent they want; and

"Whereas the government's proposal will eliminate rent control on new buildings, and allow landlords to pass on repair bills and other costs to tenants; and

"Whereas the government's proposal will make it easier for landlords to demolish buildings and easier to convert apartments to condominiums; and

"Whereas due to the zero vacancy rate in Metro Toronto the removal of rent control will cause extreme hardship for seniors and tenants on fixed incomes and others who cannot afford homes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario to keep the existing system of rent control."

I concur with the intentions of the petitioners and I will affix my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive petitions from thousands of workers all across Ontario, outraged at this government's ongoing attack on their health and safety and WCB rights.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I rise today with another petition from the good people of Port Colborne concerning the seniors' driver exam.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the Minister of Transportation:

"Whereas the driver examination centre in the city of Welland is slated to close later in October; and

"Whereas these changes represent an undue hardship in that they will require Port Colborne and Wainfleet senior citizens to drive up to an hour away to take their annual road test on the unfamiliar and busy roads of St Catharines; and

"Whereas the fact that a very high proportion of seniors eventually pass their road test has led the Minister of Transportation to state that he will re-examine the requirements for issuing drivers' licences to seniors,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation to develop a system of licensing that is less onerous on the senior citizens of Port Colborne and Wainfleet and that recognizes that when tests are required, familiar local roads are the fairest place to assess driver ability."

Beneath the names of Kay Kelba and Morley Hindle of Port Colborne, I affix my signature to this petition.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I continue to get petitions from construction workers and miners, which say:

"To the Honourable Solicitor General and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that Solicitor General Bob Runciman, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

I affix my signature, as I agree with the petition.

POVERTY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here another petition, again from the same group of people, various people who were at the gathering to protest Mr Harris when he was in Timmins at a $150-a-plate dinner last week, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas 1996 is the International Year for the Eradication of Poverty;

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government has created a climate of poor-bashing by stereotyping poor people as lazy and blaming them for our social and economic problems;

"Whereas the message is reinforced through government policies, big business and the corporate media;

"Whereas Mike Harris's Tories have cut welfare, social programs, employment standards, job training and child care and created workfare;

"Whereas although big business profits are up, 57,000 have lost their jobs in the economy;

"Whereas social program spending actually accounts for very little of the deficit and debt problem;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon Premier Mike Harris, his government and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop blaming the poor and bring an end to the legislated poverty in this province."

I affix my name to that petition.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have another set of petitions from legal owners and users of firearms who are concerned about ammunition restrictions.

"Whereas the NDP government under former Premier Bob Rae passed legislation, Bill 181, the Ammunition Regulation Act, placing restrictions on the sale of ammunition in Ontario; and

"Whereas the provisions contained in Bill 181 are time-consuming, onerous and create unnecessary red tape; and

"Whereas the records for which these provisions have been produced as a result of the provisions of Bill 181 cannot reasonably be used to track criminals; and

"Whereas Bill 181 was passed in only one day, without any discussion with law-abiding gun owners such as farmers, collectors, hunters and recreational shooters, who understand and have a deep respect for the power of firearms and ammunition and the need to maintain and use their equipment in the safest of conditions; and

"Whereas Bill 181 will do nothing to combat the illegal use of ammunition;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to repeal Bill 181, protect the rights of responsible firearms owners and work for tougher penalties against weapons offences."

I agree with this petition and therefore affix my name to it.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Minister of Labour, Premier of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

I add my signature to theirs.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to present yet another petition from the senior citizens, of this time, Fort Erie, Ontario, concerning the drivers' exams for seniors.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to the Minister of Transportation:

"Whereas the driver examination centre in the town of Fort Erie has been closed as of September 24 and the centre in Niagara Falls will close later in October; and

"Whereas these changes represent an undue hardship in that they will require Fort Erie senior citizens to drive up to an hour away to take their annual road tests on the unfamiliar roads of St Catharines; and

"Whereas the fact that a very high proportion of seniors eventually pass their road test has led the Minister of Transportation to state that he will re-examine the requirements for issuing drivers' licences for seniors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Transportation to develop a system of licensing that is less onerous on the senior citizens of Fort Erie and that recognizes that when tests are required, familiar local roads are the fairest places to assess driver ability."

Beneath the names of Mr Mantle and Mr Putney, I affix my signature.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have been receiving thousands and thousands of petitions of this sort. This is to Premier Harris and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Al Leach, and members of the Ontario Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, protest this government's actions against tenants described below.

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

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

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

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

I will affix my signature in agreement with these tenants.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Martiniuk from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 79,

An Act to improve Ontario's court system, to respond to concerns raised by charities and their volunteers and to improve various statutes relating to the administration of justice / Projet de loi 79, Loi visant à améliorer le système judiciaire de l'Ontario, à répondre aux préoccupations exprimées par les oeuvres de bienfaisance et leurs bénévoles, et à améliorer diverses lois relatives à l'administration de la justice.

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

Shall Bill 79 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Silipo from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 22nd report and moved its adoption.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): These are recommending concurrence with the review of two appointees recommended which the committee reviewed this morning.

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

OPPOSITION DAY

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr Hampton moved opposition day motion number 3:

Whereas the struggles of working families in Ontario for the past 50 years have led to safer workplaces, improvements to working conditions and standards, greater economic justice for pensioners and injured workers, pay equity for women and a more prosperous Ontario; and

Whereas this year marks the 50th anniversary of such milestones as the historic strike by steelworkers at Stelco in Hamilton and the landmark strike by auto workers at Ford in Windsor; and

Whereas the Ontario Workers Arts and Heritage Centre, opening this year in Hamilton, is focusing much-needed attention on the history of working people; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government has launched a sustained attack on workers' rights; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government has stripped rights from workers in the Labour Relations Act while encouraging employers to force strikes, incite violence and hire scabs, causing more days lost to strikes already this year in Ontario than at any time since the passage of Bill 40; and

Whereas striking workers -- at S.A. Armstrong, General Motors, Niagara region and elsewhere -- are under attack from their employers as a direct result of the Mike Harris government's actions; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government is preparing to take $15 billion from injured workers and give $6 billion to Ontario employers, undermining the long-standing compromise that guarantees full and fair workers' compensation in return for protecting employers from lawsuits; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government is threatening to close the Occupational Disease Panel and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers, while setting the stage for attacking the right to refuse unsafe work; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government has pushed through amendments to the Employment Standards Act, under the guise of "housekeeping," that make it more difficult for vulnerable workers to defend their rights; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government has begun the gutting of pay equity protection for women, while making plans for further attacks on pay equity in the current session; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government has laid off hundreds of workers at the Ministry of Labour, including key staff in enforcement of employment standards and health and safety laws; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government has frozen Ontario's minimum wage, forcing down the standard of living of Ontario's most vulnerable workers while the US Congress has passed legislation raising the US minimum wage to a level higher than Ontario's; and

Whereas the Mike Harris government is driving down the standard of living of working families, while putting more money in the pockets of wealthy corporations and individuals, sharpening the divide between the haves and the have-nots; and

Whereas the Minister of Labour is, under the guise of creating "balance," taking power from unorganized and organized workers and putting more power in the hands of employers; and

Whereas the Minister of Labour rewrote the Ontario Labour Relations Act without a single day of public hearings, tried to roll back rights under the Employment Standards Act without public hearings and refuses to commit to full, province-wide public hearings on the drastic changes proposed to the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act;

Therefore this House calls on the government to withdraw its proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act, scrap its proposed amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act, commit to full funding of the Occupational Disease Panel and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers, increase the Ontario minimum wage immediately and reinstate the ban on replacement workers in strikes and lockouts.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): This is indeed an important occasion in the Legislature. It's an important occasion because for 50 years working people across this province have struggled in Ontario to make this province a better place to live.

These include better working conditions, safer workplaces, greater economic justice for pensioners and injured workers, fairer pay for women. The result of all these gains has been a more prosperous Ontario for all. Workers have made Ontario a better place to live because of all the gains that working families have made.

But it is sad, as I just recounted for members of this House, to see that Ontario now has a government which is bent upon rolling back the clock, rolling back the clock to a time when working people did not have good workers' compensation coverage, when working people did not have the right to refuse unsafe work, rolling back the clock to a time when the minimum wage was below the poverty line, rolling back the clock to a time when workers are considered less than full partners in society, less than full partners in the economy. That is, sadly, what is happening at the behest and with the approval and with the active instigation of this government.

But we want to celebrate today what workers have achieved and then we want to point out just how wrong this government is. This year is the 50th anniversary of some of the most significant events in Ontario labour history, Canadian labour history and, I would argue, in world labour history: 1946 was the hot year of post-war labour solidarity which led to important advances for working families all across this province and all across Canada.

Returning Second World War veterans refused to be told that there were no jobs for them, that there was no housing for them, that there was no training for them, that there was no work for them. Instead, they played a key role in fighting for better wages and better working conditions for everyone in this province.

In Hamilton, the strike by steelworkers at Stelco led to important gains and also inspired an enduring sense of community. In Windsor, the 1946 strike at Ford established a tradition of solidarity for the auto workers in Canada and was a first step towards much-improved wages and working conditions in the auto industry.

The Ontario Workers Arts and Heritage Centre in Hamilton offers a salute to the achievements of working families in this province. The centre opens this fall in the historic Custom House in the north end of Hamilton. The centre features displays that portray the history of working people. It also serves as a clearinghouse and collecting point of information, recording workers' history before it is forgotten.

A conference hosted by the Ontario Workers Arts and Heritage Centre earlier this year attracted about 100 women and men to review critical moments in the history of Ontario workers, especially the landmark strikes of 50 years ago which established the compromise in Ontario society, the compromise that recognized things like a decent minimum wage, that recognized things like the right to strike, the right to organize, the right of trade unions to have a say in how our society is governed and the direction our society takes. It's an important event. It's an important event this year, this day, and the opening of the Ontario Workers Arts and Heritage Centre is an important event for Ontario.

But, as I said earlier, it is very sad that the progress that has been made over the last 50 years is now under direct attack by this right-wing government. Working families in Ontario now face a new challenge: a government that is actively rolling back the gains that working families have struggled for throughout the post-war era.

Since taking office last year, the Harris Conservative government has launched a sustained attack on workers' rights. The Conservative government has stripped rights from workers in the Labour Relations Act, encouraging employers to force strikes, to hire scabs and to provoke confrontation on the picket line. In fact, through August, there were already 1.38 million person-days lost to lockouts and strikes in Ontario, up from just 354,000 in the same period last year.

There were more days lost to lockouts and strikes in the first eight months of 1996 than in all three years that Bill 40 was in effect, from 1993 until 1995. The figures for 1996 don't even include the massive strike by the Canadian Auto Workers at General Motors or other current work stoppages such as the strike by CUPE workers in the Niagara region as a result of the Harris government's policies.

These figures also don't include the full impact of the strike by the United Steelworkers at S.A. Armstrong in Scarborough, where workers have been on the picket line since April, on the picket line trying to defend the wages they have struggled so long and so hard to earn; on the picket line trying to defend some control over their workplace; on the picket line trying to defend pensions; on the picket line trying to defend benefits. The employer, S.A.

Armstrong, has followed the encouragement of the Harris Conservative government and has demanded major concessions from the workers and has brought in scabs to try to break the union. That is, sadly, what this Conservative government has encouraged and that is the kind of situation, the kind of labour relations this government is trying to encourage.

Some of the S.A. Armstrong workers are in the gallery today. I'd like to see any member of the government try to explain to these steelworkers how the Harris Conservative government's labour laws have made Ontario better for them.

It's important to note that almost every one of the steelworkers who has worked at S.A. Armstrong has worked there for over 10 or 15 years; some have 20 years' seniority. They have been dedicated workers; they have helped to make S.A. Armstrong a productive company and a profitable company. Yet this government believes that it must conduct an attack on these workers and other workers in Ontario.

This will not work. This will not lead to a more productive Ontario. This will not lead to an Ontario that people are proud to live in and proud to be a part of. This is a march back into the past; it is a march back to the kind of labour relations that existed in this province before the Second World War; it is a march back into the kind of economy that people, sadly, experienced during the Great Depression. Unfortunately, this government will force a lot of suffering on to a lot of people in this province before it discovers how wrong it is.

But there is much more to this Conservative government's anti-worker agenda. There is much more that they intend to do to drive down the standard of living of working people; for example, the workers' compensation and workplace health and safety. A major battleground this fall will be this government's plans to attack workplace health and safety and the Workers' Compensation Board.

Any doubts we had about where this government is heading disappeared when we started reading the 58-page leaked cabinet submission that we received via a brown envelope. The big picture is clear: The Harris Conservative government has a plan to take $15 billion from injured workers and their families and give $6 billion to some of the wealthiest employers in this province. In the process, the Conservatives are going to abolish the Occupational Disease Panel, complete the destruction of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and try to set the stage for its next step: an all-out assault on the right to refuse unsafe work.

The Conservative government says it will try to ram the WCB health and safety bill through the House in a matter of weeks. We want to serve notice now that ramming this kind of attack on workers through the House in a matter of a couple of weeks is totally unacceptable, totally unacceptable to people all over Ontario. We know that people all over Ontario will be demanding full, province-wide public hearings on these important changes, on these attacks on workers.

I want to put the government on notice that if it thinks it's had a fight in the past over some of these things, nothing will compare to the fight it will have over workers' compensation and occupational health and safety. Nothing will compare to that fight.

Other highlights of the leaked cabinet document, though, tell a very sad story. The government plans would require that a worker consent to the release of his or her confidential medical information when applying for workers' compensation. Health care professionals, physicians, nurses and other health care workers advise strongly against making injured workers sign this blank cheque, because at the time the workers provided such consent, workers would have no reasonable understanding of the nature of the information that would be released following an assessment by the health professional.

I wonder how many members of the Conservative government would sign a consent for the release of their full medical file. I really wonder how many members of the Conservative government would sign today a release of all the information contained in their medical files. I don't think there would be many of them, because our medical files are part of our private being, part of what we expect to be treated with privacy, part of what we expect to be treated with confidentiality.

Yet this government shows so little respect for workers that it's going to propose a law which says that workers have to shred all their privacy, have to give away all their confidentiality if they even so much as file a workers' compensation claim. This is nothing less than disgusting. This is nothing less than pathetic -- nothing less.

You can count on the fact that when this comes up for debate, we'll be asking every Conservative member of this Legislature to sign a disclosure making his or her own private medical file available. If workers are going to be forced to submit to this kind of indignity, then I would suggest Conservative members of the government ought to submit to this kind of indignity.

Then there is the disclosure of the ultimate fallacy. The government says it wants to do this to save money, but you know what? The government intends to change the name of the Workers' Compensation Board, and do you know how much just the change of name will cost? The leaked cabinet document discloses that the change of name itself will blow $1 million, will waste $1 million on a name change. The government's whole line of reasoning here is totally fraudulent, and the fact that it's willing to spend $1 million on a name change shows how absurd it is.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Just a word of advice. Be careful with the type of words you choose. Just be careful, be extremely careful, and don't play with fire, please.

Mr Hampton: I have not accused the government of lying, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Just be careful.

Mr Hampton: The government's anti-worker agenda goes on when one examines employment standards. We've just seen the bad-boss bill. In fact, earlier this week, the Conservative government forced through this House the bad-boss bill on employment standards. Last spring the labour minister tried to pass the bad-boss bill off as housekeeping, merely saying, "These are housekeeping changes." But that didn't work. Once people saw what was included in the bill, people recognized that this legislation took away important rights from the most vulnerable workers in this province.

When people saw what was in the bad-boss bill, they demanded public hearings, and the government was forced to give in. Then we heard from hundreds of individuals and groups in community after community across this province who said without hesitation that the bad-boss bill would be bad for workers and was a gift for some of the worst bosses in this province.

But that's not the end of it either. The minister has announced plans for a full-scale review of the entire Employment Standards Act. The government has a discussion paper that it's kept under wraps, that it's working on secretly. But we know what's in that discussion paper. Ontario workers will be watching to see what other rights are under attack.

A particular concern is the issue of overtime. We understand that the government wants to give employers the right to require up to 56 hours of overtime in a week; in other words, give employers the right to demand that workers work all those hours of overtime, regardless of whether workers have a family to look after, regardless of whether workers have children to look after, regardless of whether the worker's family is going to suffer.

Whatever the bad bosses want, this government is prepared to give them, no matter what the detriment to workers, no matter what the detriment to workers' families, no matter what the detriment to the community. So workers are going to watch for this and workers are going to fight this.

This is wrong for Ontario. When the unemployment rate is 9% and going higher, when Ontario lost 35,000 jobs in the month of September, when retail sales are down despite the fact we have the lowest interest rates in many, many years in this country, when all of these things are happening, to force workers to work more and more hours of overtime is profoundly wrong. To force workers to neglect their families, to neglect their children, to neglect their home life in order that they can be forced to work more overtime, is not only economically wrong; it is morally wrong. But as I say, the government will bring this forward and it will face the fight of its life on these issues.

It doesn't end here, however. Equal pay is a guarantee of fair wages for women; it's a guarantee that employers will not pay women less for the same work or similar work men may be doing. Equal pay is equality. It is the principle that all workers should be paid equally and treated equally in the workplace, and now the government is even abandoning that.

Pay equity legislation was originally passed in 1987 with support from all three parties. Then the New Democratic government built upon the success of 1987 and in 1993 expanded equal pay coverage to about 420,000 more women by adding new equal pay tools like proportional value and proxy comparison.

The Harris Conservative government repealed the proxy method in its omnibus bill last year and eliminated the possibility of achieving equal pay for about 100,000 women in some of the lowest-paid jobs. In addition, thousands of women in the broader public sector who had won equal pay adjustments had these payments reduced by the Harris government. The Conservatives also eliminated funding for the Pay Equity Advocacy and Legal Services clinic, which helped women who are not in unions get what they deserve under the law: equal pay.

Since 1988, when the original Pay Equity Act took effect, there had been real progress. The wage gap between women and men earning yearly full-time salaries had decreased from 36% in 1988 to 24% last year. Sadly, that is now ending. There is still more progress to be made in equal pay, still much that needs to be done to ensure that workers, no matter their gender, are paid on an equal basis. But under the Harris Conservative government it's not going to happen.

Instead, the Harris Conservative government is laying plans to gut the Pay Equity Act and abolish the Pay Equity Commission, which would halt all proactive enforcement. From now on, pay equity would only be enforced if a low-paid woman has the financial resources to file and pursue a complaint herself. In other words, the government is going to make it virtually impossible for women to achieve equal pay. The government is going to make it financially almost impossible for the lowest-paid women to achieve what they are entitled to by law and what they are entitled to by the principles of the United Nations.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): So it's equal pay for rich women only.

Mr Hampton: Equal pay for rich Conservative women only.

The government pays lip-service to the principles of pay equity, but it's doing everything it can to make sure no more women benefit from the law. They're doing everything they can to ensure the lowest-paid women in the province continue to be the lowest-paid.

Then there are things like cutbacks at the labour ministry, but I know that other members of our caucus want to talk about that, and there are things like the absolute failure of this government to consult and talk with workers across the province. Other members of my caucus want to talk about that.

I want to spend the last few minutes addressing the insult that is happening with respect to minimum wages. There are literally hundreds of thousands of workers in this province. The only way they get a pay raise is if the minimum wage is raised. That stands with the government. The Harris Conservative government is driving down the wages and living standards of those people: workers who receive the minimum wage.

Over the term of the NDP government we gradually raised the minimum wage to $6.85 an hour. It's important to note that about 60% of all minimum wage earners are women. This includes mothers supporting their families at or below the poverty line. This summer even the Republican-dominated US Congress felt it had to show some decency by raising the minimum wage in the United States. They passed a bill that will raise the minimum wage to US$5.15 an hour, and if you use a 35% exchange rate, it works out to C$7 an hour. When you consider the exchange rate, it actually puts the minimum wage higher all across the United States than it is now in Ontario.

What a disgrace that this government aims to have the lowest minimum wage on the continent. What a disgrace to say that this government intends to go out there and say: "Ontario has the lowest minimum wage. We're proud of it."

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Not true.

Mr Hampton: Some of the Conservative members say, "Untrue." The facts speak for themselves. Even a right-wing Congress dominated by the likes of Newt Gingrich passed a minimum wage increase that puts the minimum wage in the United States higher than in Ontario. The facts speak for themselves.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): You wouldn't know a fact if you fell over it, Howie. That's why you were bumped when you were in cabinet.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, obviously I've touched a nerve with the Conservative members, who clapped and cheered in here when the Minister of Labour tried to defend the use of scabs in the workplace.

It's useful just to reflect for a moment on the kind of economy we're going into in the 21st century. We're going into an economy where investments in training, in workers and in education for workers that will help make workers more productive are going to be more important than ever. What is this government doing? This government is sending a message to workers to workers: "We're not interested in investing in training. We're not interested in investing in you as workers. We're not interested in investing in safe and healthy workplaces.

We're not interested in investing in a Workers' Compensation Board that helps and benefits workers. We're not interested in raising the standard of living of workers. We're interested in having the lowest minimum wage in North America." It's a government that's interested in gutting the Workers' Compensation Board and destroying the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. That's the record of this government.

I have something very clear to say to the members of the government. Your agenda may enjoy some short-term popularity out there with those people who are looking for someone to blame, but in the longer term this government will go the same way that in the United States Ronald Reagan went, that George Bush went, that Robert Dole is going to go in about a month: down to the basement where they belong. People want to support a positive agenda which builds, not an agenda which cuts, not an agenda which attacks people, not an agenda which hurts people.

Mr Baird: What about Bob Rae?

Mr Turnbull: We're going to get a new history book.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): Tell us about Bob Rae in the basement.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You'll have your turn. Just be patient.

Mr Hampton: I know the government doesn't want to hear any of this, but throughout the day they will hear just how much they have attacked and hurt working people in this province and how wrong it is for all people in Ontario.

We celebrate workers, the contribution workers have made and the kind of vision workers want to build in this province.

Interruption.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd just like to advise the member in the gallery, you're most welcome here except that you have to follow and obey the procedures of the House, which indicate that you should not applaud or make any signs whatsoever.

Further debate? The member for Cochrane South, please. Otherwise you'll have to take your chair.

Mr Bisson: I'll take your chair.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, I ask you to apologize to the Chair.

Mr Bisson: I apologize.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nepean.

Mr Baird: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and join this debate on the NDP resolution.

The goals of the Mike Harris government have always been very clear and straightforward. Our goal is to create jobs, encourage more investment in Ontario and bring hope and opportunity back to the province. For many years Ontario was the economic engine of Canada, a magnet for jobs, investment and opportunity, and for too long over the last 10 years and the two previous governments we've become a mismanaged debtor. We've become overgoverned, overregulated and overtaxed. We've lost our competitiveness, our ability to compete in the global market.

Competitiveness is very important. I read with great interest Bob Rae's book the other day, from which I'll read a quote on page 224 the members opposite might be interested in:

"Ontario was not seen as hungry enough for new business and new investment. Bureaucracy was too big and inefficient. We were lousy marketers. American states were much better at being aggressive and attracting new jobs. We were overtaxed and overregulated.... These are not things that New Democrats like to admit to ourselves, though they were increasingly obvious to most people."

Obviously Mr Rae learned a tremendous amount in government and he took it all with him when he left the House.

Mr Bisson: He's the guy that did the anti-scab legislation, so what's your point? You're the guys who are taking it away.

Mr Baird: The member opposite mentioned Bill 40. We believe that Bill 40 killed jobs. We were very clear the day Bill 40 passed that if we were given the privilege of forming a government in Ontario -- the then leader of the third party, Mr Harris, stood in his place the day after it passed and said very clearly, "We will repeal Bill 40." He wanted to be so clear that a vote for him and a vote for one of his candidates in the next election would be a vote against Bill 40 that on the day after Bill 40 passed he put an ad in the Globe and Mail which said simply, "We will repeal Bill 40." It could not have been clearer.

From the day it was passed, it was going. To prove that this government is keeping its word, we introduced Bill 7 to restore balance and stability to labour relations in the province of Ontario. It is important to note --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You turned back the laws