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

December 3, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L255a - Wed 3 Dec 1997 / Mer 3 Déc 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

SANTA ON WHEELS

WATER QUALITY

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE WEB SITE

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS

RED TAPE REVIEW COMMISSION

WEARING OF RED RIBBONS

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

DEFERRED VOTES

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (N O 2)

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROPERTY TAXATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

TVONTARIO

ACADEMIC TESTING

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

PETITIONS

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

ARREST OF PROTESTORS

ABORTION

EDUCATION FINANCING

CHARITY CASINOS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

ABORTION

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

TRAFFIC CONTROL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Yesterday at 6 pm Algoma Steel announced the closure of the iron ore division at Wawa. The community's worst fears were realized by this announcement. In this community of 4,200 people, 220 employees face the choice of uprooting and transferring to Sault Ste Marie or losing employment.

The loss of 220 good jobs in Wawa has devastating effects on this small community. The town will lose about 15% of its direct employment, with the inevitable spinoffs through the broader business community. To put this in perspective, Toronto would have to face the loss of nearly a quarter of a million jobs.

In addition, the community will lose a sizeable assessment at the mine from this closure. Presently the community faces a net downloading cost from the province of in excess of $1.5 million. Without provincial assistance, the community will just have to turn over the keys to Premier Harris.

I call on the Minister of Northern Development to immediately and personally go to Wawa to meet with community leaders, to personally assure the community of his support and to provide a significant commitment to the people of Wawa and northern communities.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): As was just indicated, Algoma Steel announced late yesterday afternoon the complete cessation of the operations of Algoma Ore division, the main employer in the community, in June 1998.

Algoma Ore division is the backbone of the economy of Wawa and region. This is devastating for the 220 employees, the business community and the community as a whole.

Algoma Ore employees are very competitive. They've improved their productivity substantially over the years. It's true that Algoma Steel is offering them jobs in Sault Ste Marie, but the real estate market in the community and the retail business sector will be seriously hurt by this announcement. Six months is not enough for the town to adjust.

Algoma Steel has stated that it is committed to working with the community of Wawa and the provincial and federal governments in determining the ways in which the community can be assisted in dealing with the impacts of the closure. It's time for the Conservative government here and the federal Liberal government to make a similar commitment to the one the NDP government made in 1992, when we were faced with the downsizing of Algoma Steel. We worked to preserve the AOD operation. We obtained a Jager Strandboard plant for Wawa, employing 150 people.

If we could do that as a government, this Conservative provincial government should be committed to economic development and economic diversification for the Wawa region as well.

SANTA ON WHEELS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I'm pleased to rise today and call the attention of all the members of this House to an excellent charity, Santa on Wheels. Metro Toronto Chairman Alan Tonks and I launched the program at the Toronto Eaton Centre last Thursday, and I held a Scarborough launch at the Scarborough Town Centre the following day.

Santa on Wheels provides toys and gifts to needy children over the holiday season. The program was started by Bell Canada and Nortel telephone pioneers to help children in families that are struggling.

Bell employees and retirees donate their own time to this cause. There are drop boxes at Bell phone centres where people can donate toys and gifts. The program is in its second year, and this is the first year that the donation boxes will be in all the phone centres in the 416 area code.

The gifts will go to families living in Metro Toronto hostels. I'll be delivering gifts to the Scarborough family hostels.

I would ask all the members of the Legislature to throw their full support behind this excellent program in their own ridings. I would further encourage anyone who has a little extra this year to make a donation for somebody who is struggling over the holidays. There are 758 children and 650 adults in Metro Toronto hostels. I ask everyone to do what they can to help the Santa on Wheels program and try to provide a merry Christmas for needy kids and families.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment. As you are aware, the residents of Sioux Lookout have been under a "boil water" advisory since April 1997. The reason for the advisory, as the minister is well aware, is the large amount of bacteria in the water.

In response to my September 15 question on this issue, you stated: "The ministry is now going through several applications by municipalities across the province and we will be prioritizing those with regard to which ones are in most urgent need. I expect the decisions with regard to the funding to be made in the very near future."

Now that you have had almost three months to study the applications, my constituents in Sioux Lookout, along with the mayor and council, want to know how much longer they will have to wait for your funding announcement to be made in regard to this filtration plant. Unlike most communities that are experiencing water problems, Sioux Lookout's water supply is contaminated by not one but two parasites. They need this government's and the minister's immediate attention to solve the issue.

Again, Minister, let me remind you of your commitment in this House to the Sioux Lookout residents and council on September 15 that decisions would be made "in the very near future." As I have said on many occasions, most communities in this province take access to clean water for granted. Why should the residents of Sioux Lookout be any different?

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today we celebrate the International Day of Disabled Persons, but unfortunately it's not much of a celebration here in the province of Ontario. Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution, "Aid to seniors and the disabled will not be cut." That's a broken promise. Programs have been cut, supports have been eroded and laws have been repealed.

While Bill 160 has been in the spotlight lately, another couple of bills were slipped through, bills that have a tremendous impact on the disabled community yet did not have the attention because we were all captivated in the province with the dispute around education.

Is it any wonder that Mike Harris is hiding some of these things? Let's take a look at Bill 96, the end, the death of rent controls. That has tremendous impact for the disabled community. There's also the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, some aspects of which I've been very clear that I support and think are good, but there are aspects in there which give bureaucrats the power to determine disabled persons incapable of dealing with their own affairs, without going through due process, and also aspects that allow disabled persons to be fingerprinted.

What about the promise for the Ontarians With Disabilities Act? The Premier promised that. It is nowhere on the legislative agenda. When I asked him last year what he had to say to the disabled community, he said, "Sorry, but we're going to do it." The new minister has refused to meet with the disabled community on this. I call on the government to at least live up to that promise. Pass the Ontarians With Disabilities Act.

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE SERVICE WEB SITE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I wish to congratulate the new chief of the Durham Regional Police Service, Kevin McAlpine, and his staff for their initiative in becoming the first police service in Canada to use the Internet to receive crime reports from victims.

This user-friendly site was designed by Constable Leon Presner of Durham Regional Police Service. He is continuing to develop the Web page so that the information is safe and secure. An important aspect of this new service on the Net is that there will be a Web page dedicated to victim outreach, with a psychologist on board. As well, all groups, from teens to seniors, are encouraged to write on issues of importance to them personally. Also accepted on the site will be reports of lost-and-found and missing articles.

There are many advantages of this new policing service. For instance:

(2) Police officers will have more time to be on the road to deal with higher-priority calls.

(3) Costs are low, approximately $400 for startup.

To access the new Durham Regional Police Service Web site, call up www.police.durham.on.ca.

I commend the efforts of the Durham Regional Police Service in finding new and inventive ways of providing enhanced and better service -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

FARM PRACTICES PROTECTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Over the last few weeks we have seen this government rush to push its contentious legislation through the Legislature as quickly as possible. While they cannot move quickly enough to steamroll public opinion, they drag their feet when it comes to legislation that has wide public support.

On June 26, the Minister of Agriculture introduced Bill 146, the Farming and Food Production Protection Act. This act is intended to update existing legislation which governs farming practices in Ontario. The act was brought forward for second reading on September 24, and after receiving minimal debate it was shelved in favour of other legislation.

The question is, why? Our caucus agreed to facilitate the passage of this bill and we have seen in the past that the government has nothing against the prompt passage of legislation. So what's the problem? Why does the minister not continue with second reading of Bill 146?

Many of the new amalgamated municipalities, which include rural and urban areas, are eager to see this legislation pass before January 1, 1998. The minister should be getting pressure from his own caucus. I suggest he bring the legislation back to the House so we can discuss issues surrounding this bill. We see no reason for delay and urge the minister to bring this back so we can pass it by year's end. Minister, get your House leader on side today.

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Recently I was pleased to have the opportunity to attend the annual Boys and Girls Clubs scholarship awards presentations.

Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario believe that every kid has potential. Knowing the rising costs of post-secondary education and the financial challenges faced by many of our young people, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ontario started a scholarship program in 1992. To date, over $140,000 has been given out to 136 youth across Ontario who are striving to achieve their potential.

This has taken place through the help of many private corporate donors and certainly some public institutions like the Toronto Raptors Foundation and the Blue Jays Charitable Foundation.

I want to particularly note today, among the recipients for this year, four people who are active residents in the riding of Dovercourt. They are:

Connie LaRusso, who has been a member of the Dovercourt Boys and Girls Club for 10 years. She's currently in her third year of the sociology and law and society program at York University.

Telly Russo is studying logistics management at George Brown College. He has been part of the Dovercourt club for 14 years.

Anna Maria DiPaolo is enrolled in the general arts program at York University, with the goal of teaching in the future. She has been an active part of the Dovercourt club for 11 years.

Steven Svarnas has been with the St Alban's club for 12 years. He is currently in year four of the kinesiology and health sciences program at York University.

To them and to the rest of the recipients this year and to the Boys and Girls Club movement, my congratulations and thanks for the good work they continue to do.

RED TAPE REVIEW COMMISSION

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I rise today to talk about an important commitment this government made to the people of Ontario in its effort to create jobs. I'm speaking about the elimination of red tape.

Government red tape and unnecessary regulations have burdened this province for far too long, resulting in barriers to job creation, slowing the province's economic growth and increasing public frustration.

Statistics show that job creation and business productivity are significantly affected by red tape. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 43% of the firms spent more than six hours a week and 17% spent more than 10 hours a week on government paperwork.

This government began the process of identifying and eliminating red tape with the establishment of the Red Tape Review Commission in 1995. It was my good fortune to be made its chairman, one of the most significant jobs outside of cabinet.

We would never have gotten to where we are today without the dedicated involvement of my colleagues and our external advisory committee.

I'm proud of the progress the government and our commission have achieved, first in identifying the problem; second, in designing a process to deal with it. The government has responded to our recommendations, first, by extending our mandate; second, by implementing a regulatory impact and competitiveness test; third, by referring all regulatory policies to the commission for prior approval.

There's more red tape to be found and cut. We're determined to do it. It is a pleasure to inform you that the Red Tape Commission continues its efforts and will be looking to everyone, both inside and outside government, to help us identify red tape. Our efforts are supported by groups such as CFIB, the Council of Universities -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

WEARING OF RED RIBBONS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent that we be allowed to wear red ribbons in regard to AIDS Awareness Week for today and tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's today and tomorrow. Agreed? Agreed.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I might, I just want to speak to the point of order originally raised by the member for Algoma and the member for Fort William.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just a second on that, and I will come right back to you.

Members of the House, the member for Downsview and others, there comes a point when I've got to say, "Okay, I've had enough submissions." Even if I ask you to put it in writing, you're going to give it to me in writing, and that means I've got to stop the process and read that submission. I have in fact investigated, checked with the authorities, gone through the whole process, and I'm going to render a decision.

I really hate to tell anyone they can't submit any more, but by submitting, the process again is I've got to review your submission. If you really believe that at this time your submission is offering me any information that's truly germane and new to the submissions that have been previously offered, then I will hear it. But quite frankly, I can't imagine that there's anything you're going to offer at this time that I myself and the staff and all those others who have submitted haven't offered.

Ms Castrilli: Thank you, Speaker. The reason I rose on a point of order was not to repeat old ground. It's related directly to the submission that the government House leader forwarded to you, which I've had an opportunity to review. It's in response to that, and I think you might find the point. I will be brief and I will make very few points.

The Speaker: Okay. I'm not going to turn the submission down, but again I'll have to take this into account and report back at the earliest convenience.

Ms Castrilli: As I indicated at the outset, I will be very brief. I will be responding to the submissions of the government House leader, pointing out a number of the submissions that were made there and responding to them.

The first is the government's contention that standing order 51 is to be limited only to motions, and they point to the proposition that standing order 51 appears in

part XI of the standing orders dealing with motions.

I'd just like to point out to you, and I won't repeat the standing order to you because I'm sure you're very familiar with it, that the government in its own submission admits that bills are proceeded with by way of motion for each of the three readings, and indeed in committee with amendments. I submit to you that this is conclusive evidence that standing order 51 is indeed applicable to this question.

The second contention of the government is that standing order 51 is in conflict with

section 3 of the Statutes Act. Again, I won't read

section 3 of the Statutes Act. I imagine you know it quite well by now. What I would say to you is that this assertion is not applicable in this case.

Section 3 clearly refers to

an act, and Bills 160 and 149, I submit to you, are not acts in our parliamentary or legislative procedures. I refer you to Black's Law Dictionary, the fifth edition, at page 24, which distinguishes between a bill and

an act as follows, and if you don't mind, Speaker, I will read that to you:

"When introduced into the first House of the Legislature a piece of proposed legislation is known as a bill. When it is passed to the next House it may then be referred to as

an act. After enactment," which is the particular case here, "the terms `law' and `act' may be used interchangeably."

In other words,

an act is a law, not a bill, and therefore

section 3 of the Statutes Act cannot refer to either Bills 149 or 160 that are before us.

The third submission of the government is that the bills in question do not deal with substantially the same subject matter and therefore can proceed simultaneously in this Legislature. I think the parliamentary procedure is clear that you cannot proceed with two similar bills in the Legislature, and the House of Commons decision in 1968 on the Income Tax Act is proof of that proposition.

The members for Fort William and Algoma have already amply demonstrated that sections of Bill 149 and Bill 160 do in fact deal with the same subject matter. I will not repeat those arguments, but the bill ought to be ruled out of order on the basis of those submissions.

The fourth contention of the government is that the motion for second reading -

The Speaker: Order, members. If you're having a meeting, could I ask that you have the meeting out in the lobbies, please. I would like to hear the submission.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines-Brock. Thank you.

Ms Castrilli: The government's fourth contention is, "A motion for second reading of Bill 164 is not a motion to amend Bill 149" - and I'm quoting directly from their text.

The Speaker: It's not difficult, folks. It's not that difficult at all. If you want to meet, go meet in the lobbies.

Ms Castrilli: I will read from the government's submission as follows: "A motion for second reading of Bill 164 is not a motion to amend Bill 149, though the effect of passing Bill 164 will be to make such amendments to the law if Bill 149 receives royal assent." I submit to you, Speaker, that the effect of the government's amendments is the same as if they had amended the bill. The government is attempting to do through the back door what it could not do through the front door because of its own time allocation motion.

Finally, the government has acted recklessly. It has acted without thinking. They have established rules which they themselves cannot follow. They cannot respect their own time allocation motion, which is why we find ourselves in the situation we are in at this moment.

Speaker, I need not remind you that in an earlier ruling you indicated that privileges of the members of this House could be abridged by a time allocation motion. I ask you now to ensure that the government respect those very time allocation motions they have put in place. For these reasons, the government's submission is ill considered and I ask you to consider the bill out of order.

The Speaker: I will take those submissions, as well as the others, and certainly report back at the earliest possible time.

Are you standing on a point of order?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Yes.

The Speaker: I assume it's what I have in my hand. No. It's on a different one?

Mr Wildman: On this one. I just wanted to make the point that the member for Downsview has given additional information which basically supports the position taken by myself and by the member for Fort William in terms of the application of standing order 51 with regard to Bill 164. I hope that submission will not prolong the process, to make it difficult for you to make your ruling prior to the government House leader's ill-advised determination to call Bill 164 even though it is clearly out of order.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr91,

An Act respecting The London Community Foundation. Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr91,

An Act respecting The London Community Foundation.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 6(a), the House shall continue to meet commencing Monday, December 15, 1997, until Thursday, December 18, 1997; that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on December 15 and 16, 1997; and that pursuant to standing order 9(e)(i), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 12 midnight on December 17 and 18, 1997, for the purpose of conducting government business, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, of which I've provided you with a written submission, regarding the motion on the House calendar that the government House leader has just put. The government House leader has tabled a motion this week that would extend the sitting of the Legislature for one week and sets out times that the Legislature would meet during this additional week. The government House leader is now attempting to argue, by calling the motion during routine motions, that this House calendar motion is a routine motion, not a substantive motion. I think it's clear that this is improper.

You will be aware, Speaker, that standing order 34 says that the routine proceeding entitled "Motions" is for the purpose of "routine motions that are part of the technical procedure of the House" such as "for times of meeting and adjournment of the House" - and I emphasize times of meeting and adjournment of the House - and for changes in membership of committees and similar non-substantive motions. These routine motions do not require notice. The standing order is clear. Routine motions deal only with the times of meeting and adjournment of this House, not with the dates that this House will meet.

The motion that the government wishes to deal with today sets out four additional calendar days that the House will meet. However, that actually means an additional eight sessional days that the House will meet, thanks to the new rule changes this government imposed on the Legislature. Because of these recent rule changes to the standing orders, afternoon and evening sittings are counted, as you know, as separate sessional days. This motion makes substantive changes to the House calendar, changes that are outside the parameters of the standing orders.

A substantive motion is defined in standing order 48 as, "One that is not incidental to any other business of the House, but is a self-contained proposal capable of expressing a decision of the House." These motions do require notice. If the government House leader believed that the House calendar motion was routine, he would not have announced it for debate in the business of the House statement last Thursday.

At that time the government House leader announced, and I quote from Thursday's Hansard, page 13359, "On Wednesday afternoon, we expect to deal with Bill 161.... In the evening, we will be dealing with a House calendar motion. If that finishes, which I fully expect it will with the cooperation of the other parties, Bill 108, the provincial offences act, will be called in committee of the whole House."

Obviously, on Thursday last week the government House leader believed this was a substantive motion. He was not of the opinion that the House calendar motion was a routine motion or he would not have given notice of debate. I ask you to rule whether this is indeed a substantive motion and requires notice and is subject to debate in the House.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Your party is not known for long sessions, that's for sure.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do you want to make a submission, member for Brant-Haldimand?

Member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am actually quite surprised that we would see the government House leader rise at this time with what he is trying to pass off obviously as a very routine motion. Even the draconian new rules of the administration of Mike Harris, this present government, surely set out that there shall be time for debate, because we are clearly outside the normal procedures of this House, outside the calendar which has been printed and circulated to members of the House.

It may well be that the opposition would be delighted to have the House sit that additional week, but certainly in our view, unless there is an agreement made at a House leaders' meeting which would negate that, it will be necessary to debate it, keeping in mind again that we are talking about a two-for-one situation. Now we have two sessional days in one day; it's almost like Houdini or Mandrake the Magician, in that the government now has two days that it counts for one day.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for -

The Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Bradley: I just wanted to mention that I had the information from him. He remembers Mandrake the Magician.

It isn't routine for the House to sit that additional week if it is to accommodate controversial legislation, because the Speaker will know that the House rules have been changed so that the government in its last two weeks, for instance, may now bring in new legislation despite the argument made by the member for Parry Sound, the former government House leader, so clearly we would be expecting the government would concede that this is a substantive motion and that the House leader would want to discuss this at a House leaders' meeting rather than trying to slip it in this afternoon as a routine motion.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I did give notice to both of the other House leaders that I would be calling this during routine proceedings, and I believe that's why the House leader for the third party has submitted written reasons.

"Under the proceeding `Motions,' the government House leader may move routine motions that are part of a technical procedure of the House, including motions under standing order 9 and other motions for times of meeting and adjournment of the House, and motions for changes in membership of committees and similar non-substantive matters. Except as provided by standing order 9, these routine matters do not require notice."

Our motion as tabled provides notice as required under standing order 9(

c) for sittings from 6:30 to 9:30 pm, and standing order 9(

e) for sittings from 6:30 pm to midnight. Further, our motion fulfils the requirements of standing order 34, as it represents a motion that is part of the technical procedure of the House which establishes the times of meeting and adjournment of the House. Standing order 8(

a) defines the meeting time of the House. It reads, "The House shall meet on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays at 1:30 pm, and on Thursdays at 10 am, unless otherwise ordered."

I would submit, however, that the wording of standing order 8(

a) in its specific references to the days of the week when the House shall meet implicitly defines meeting times as both days of the week and hours of those days. For instance, the standing order does not permit the House to sit on Fridays or during the course of the weekend. To rely on a literal, narrow reading or translation of a standing order would not be appropriate.

I would argue that in spite of the standing orders, we have on many occasions in this House moved during routine proceedings to change the days on which this House sits.

On June 28, 1988, during routine proceedings there was an order that the House meet from 9 am until 12 noon on Wednesday, June 29, 1988, with routine proceedings to take place at 1 pm. There was a division at that time and the majority carried; that was carried.

On December 11, 1990 - sorry, Mr Speaker, that's not one of the examples that I wanted to use.

Mr Wildman: I wonder why.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm finding it extremely difficult, and especially back here as well. Folks behind here, you've got to keep it down back here. All about this place there are so many meetings going on it's distracting. I'm going to ask the members -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, it's not helpful for you to jabber on right now. If the members would please come back to order, I'd appreciate it, so I can hear the submissions. Thank you.

Hon Mr Sterling: During routine proceedings on November 16, 1987, the House decided to consider government business on November 19 and private members' business to be considered on November 26. In other words, we were not only dealing during routine proceedings with times but we were dealing with dates on which the House would sit.

On December 30 we did the same thing. During routine proceedings we decided that the House would sit on December 31 for certain kinds of business. On January 6, 1988, during routine proceedings we decided that on January 7 we would sit to deal with certain kinds of business. On June 16, 1988, during routine proceedings we decided that the House would not meet on June 23.

Therefore, there has been ample evidence of motions during routine proceedings being put forward, notwithstanding that there was not unanimous consent during all of the examples I have given but the motions carried in favour of the government to move those motions.

I guess the other point is, does it really make sense for us in terms of a normal, lengthy debate to deal with matters which are related to the times when this House should meet or should not meet?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On the same point, Mr Speaker: I think where you start is with the standing orders and the plain reading of the standing orders that were adopted by this Parliament just two or three months ago.

If you look at the table of contents,

section III is called "Meetings of the House." It starts off by setting out the parliamentary calendar and it specifically states in

section 6(a), "During a Parliament, the House shall meet (

a) from the Monday following the week prescribed by the regulations made under the Education Act..." etc, and then in 6(a)(ii) it states "from the fourth Monday in September to the Thursday preceding the week in which Remembrance Day falls and from the Monday of the week following Remembrance Day to the second Thursday in December," which happens to be December

Section 6 deals with the calendar.

section 7 you get more specific as to when the House can meet, taking into account the calendar that has been set out in

section 6. Then it gets more specific as to how the meetings will actually take place and the times of the meetings.

To suggest, as the government House leader is suggesting, that somehow the calendar, on which the meeting times set out in

section 8 are based, can be changed unilaterally without changing the calendar at all is simply not correct. You start off at the calendar, then, if you are within the time frame of that calendar as to when the House normally meets, and then as to when it can meet within the calendar outside of those times, up until 9:30 at night or 12 o'clock at night.

It would be our submission that the rule as set in

section 9, which is clearly within that

section of the rules that talk about the meetings of the House, has to be subject to whatever is set out in the very first

section under that particular

section dealing with the meetings of the House, has got to be within the House calendar parameters as set out in

section 6.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, there are just a couple of points that I want to make with respect to this point of order. First, the government House leader sets out a number of precedents. I think if you reviewed all of the precedents on this issue, the number of times that House calendar motions have been called forward, you would see there are precedents on both sides.

In other words, there have been times when it has been dealt with as a routine motion, most often I would say in times where there have been unanimous consents or, if not unanimous consents, there has been an agreement of the House in proceeding that way in the sense, for example, that the motion is dealing with the House sitting an extra day, being the next day, or something in which there have been time implications that have led to an agreement among House leaders that this item should be dealt with expeditiously, whether or not the content of the motion has been agreed to.

But I think there are precedents on both sides and you will find many, many more occasions in which it has been dealt with as a substantive motion. The point that I want to make is, if you are unable, simply by looking at precedents, to come to a determination with respect to the question that has been put before you, then I would ask you to look at what has happened most recently with respect to the changes of the rules in this Legislative Assembly.

We are referring now, of course, to whether or not this motion that has come forward is a routine motion under

section 34. As has been pointed out to you, that refers to technical procedural motions, including motions under standing order 9. Standing order 9 is the

section of the rules of order which sets out times for the sitting of the House and the extension till 9:30, for example, or the extension till midnight, and other motions "for times of meeting and adjournment of the House."

That phrase essentially is lifted out of the previous rules of order. The corresponding rule of order in the previous standing rules is number 35, which says, "Under the proceeding `Motions,' the government House leader may move routine motions that are part of the technical procedure of the House" - those words are identical. The reference in here to

section 9 is new because that

section 9 is brand-new, but it goes on to say "such as for times of meeting and adjournment of the House...." Essentially, we're dealing with the same words.

I would point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the new

section that has been added,

section 9, does specify certain new things with respect to motions dealing with the times that this House meets and sits and the times of the day at which it meets and sits. It does, for example, allow for evening sessions which are new sessional days that sit till 9:30. It also sets out a new procedure for a motion which allows the House sittings to be extended at any time past 6 or past 9:30 to midnight. In the past, you know that would have been provided as a motion under routine motions. It would be debated. This sets out rules which say it's not open to amendment, it's not open to debate, the immediate five-minute bell.

The point I am trying to make is that the rules with respect to motions and how they are considered, which are dealing with the times of meetings of the House and adjournment of the House, have been specifically altered and updated by these rules. The government did not put forward any proposals in rule changes with respect to dealing with the House calendar motion.

Had it been the wish of this Legislative Assembly as expressed through its majority and through the government House leader's office, there would have been specific provision put forward for that. In every other instance where the government was attempting to limit the House's ability to debate motions with respect to the times, meetings and adjournments of the House, they specifically made provision for that in the new rules set out under the new

section 9.

I believe that, both in the absence of something clearly having been set out and in the preponderance of precedents which say it should be treated as a substantive motion, although I will acknowledge there are precedents on both sides of that question, I believe it is incumbent upon you to rule that this is out of order at this time, as the government House leader, as recently as last week when he gave notice, believed it himself to be.

The Speaker: We will take a 10-minute recess.

The House recessed from 1415 to 1425.

The Speaker: Thank you for the submissions of all the members on all sides of the House. I don't find that this fits in with routine motions and it must be called an order of the day.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to have all-party statements on International Day for Persons With Disabilities.

The Speaker: You're simply asking for unanimous consent. I'll just put it: Unanimous consent for statements from all parties on what was mentioned by the member for Beaches-Woodbine? Agreed? No.

Time for oral questions.

Interjection: Deferred vote.

Mr Bradley: Can we go back?

The Speaker: Yes, you can, because the Speaker is omnipotent on those issues.

DEFERRED VOTES

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (N O 2)

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 149,

An Act to continue the reforms begun by the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 and to make other amendments respecting the financing of local governments / Projet de loi 149, Loi continuant les réformes amorcées par la Loi de 1997 sur le financement équitable des municipalités et apportant d'autres modifications relativement au financement des administrations locales.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1428 to 1433.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 42.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that this bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Gani Abdurakhmanov and his delegation from the republic of Uzbekistan. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Attorney General. I'm sure, like all of us in this Legislature, you cannot help but feel some shame, some sadness and some embarrassment at what happened to the Dionne quintuplets in Ontario so many years ago.

You will well know that in 1934 they were taken from their parents and made wards of the province. They were placed in a special hospital, and over the next 10 years they were put on display. Over five million visitors came from around the world to visit them. These young girls generated millions and millions of dollars for Ontario. The Ontario government exploited these children.

What I want to ask you to consider right here and now is whether it would not be appropriate in those circumstances to stand up today on behalf of the people of Ontario and to offer the surviving Dionne quintuplets an apology.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): As I have indicated, we have certainly not shut the door on discussions with the Dionnes. We have a great deal of sympathy for the situation they find themselves in. As I've indicated, based on a legal review of the facts, it's very difficult to justify conventional compensation. But I have indicated there is a moral issue here; the government is looking at the moral issue. The fact that we are doing that should satisfy the answer the Leader of the Opposition is looking for. Certainly we are taking steps to resolve these issues.

Mr McGuinty: I'm simply asking for an apology. I think that in all the circumstances, that is the least we can do today on behalf of the people of the province for what happened to the Dionne quintuplets. They were taken from their parents. They were housed in a special hospital. They generated millions and millions of dollars; the estimate is as high as $500 million. The Ontario government produced tens of thousands of pamphlets that were distributed as part of a tourism effort to lure people here to Ontario, particularly to northern Ontario. This was the middle of the Depression. All kinds of jobs were created.

There are some very real questions that remain outstanding. But all I'm asking today is, given that the government was to act as good parents at the time, do we not owe an apology to the Dionne quintuplets?

Hon Mr Harnick: When we talk about these issues, we have to put it in the context of the law of the day. In my understanding of these issues, the public trustee was involved. There was an appointment, through the government of the day, of trustees to manage the affairs. Certainly in the context of the laws of the day, the interests of the Dionnes were looked after.

By today's standards, I don't think the laws that existed to protect children in that particular time are comparable, but certainly we are taking a look at the moral issues. We want to take the necessary steps to resolve these issues, and I hope we will.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, on behalf of the Dionne quintuplets and I think on behalf of most Ontarians who developed some understanding of what happened, I'm looking for two simple words from you, on behalf of all of us. I can't give those words. I'm not the government and you are. All I'm asking you to do is to say on behalf of the people of the province to the Dionne quintuplets: "I'm sorry for what happened. I apologize." Nothing more and nothing less.

Surely, if we are to govern our relations here purely according to the system of law, we are in a sorry, sorry state. I believe you're not saying that. You understand there's some kind of moral obligation here. I think recognizing that moral obligation begins with two very simple words, and I'm going to ask you once again to say them. I want you to stand up and say on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario to the quintuplets, "I'm sorry for what happened."

Hon Mr Harnick: Without question, I have the greatest sympathy and I am sorry for the plight the Dionnes find themselves in. I am sorry that the laws of that time were not adequate to protect children. I am sorry that we have had this situation develop and that the Dionnes are in the situation they're in.

That is precisely why we are taking a look at this issue. We want to try and ensure that the Dionnes will be properly looked after. Certainly, on behalf of the government of Ontario, I am sorry that this happened, going back to the way the laws were written and the way children were protected by the laws, going back to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. I say to the leader of the official opposition, yes, I am sorry about that, on behalf of all the people of Ontario.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Just to recap what has happened on the hospital closure front in Ontario, first of all, Mike Harris, before he became Premier, promised he wouldn't close any hospitals. Then your government set up a hospital closing commission and now 30 hospitals have been closed. You became the Minister of Health. You immediately concluded that there was no vision for health care in Ontario, that there was no plan in place, and you quite rightly became alarmed. Then you said that it was important to slow things down, and I agree entirely with that.

What I want to know now is, how is it that ordering the closure of five more hospitals is slowing down? Doesn't slowing down mean that you take your foot off the gas and put it on the brake pedal? That's not what has happened here. The hospital closing commission has proceeded to order the closure of five more hospitals. How does that constitute slowing down?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, we have the Health Services Restructuring Commission and it has now made some decisions that affect about 75% of the hospitals that are going to be reviewed. I think it's very important to understand that they are coming to the end of that particular role and at that point in time they will be assuming an advisory role.

In the interim, I have indicated that when the final recommendations are issued, we will make sure we have the appropriate community supports and long-term-care facilities in place to ensure that, as we take a look at the changing and the aging population, we will have the spaces, we will have the care that is necessary to deal with the population in the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: You said it was time to slow down. They're still out there travelling the province, some renegade operation, closing hospitals. Don't you really think it's time to reel them in and tell them to stop? You said it was time to slow down. You have effectively recognized that what they're doing is dangerous to our health care. They're ordering the closure of hospitals and we're not taking the time to get it right. We're not taking the time to ensure that the community-based care that's necessary when you shut down a hospital is first in place.

Don't you think that in all the circumstances the right thing to do if you really want to slow down is to order the restructuring commission, your closing commission, to stop its work? Isn't it time to disband it and for you to assume your rightful responsibility as the person responsible for hospitals in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's very important to remember that this province is the last province in Canada to embark on this review and this restructuring of health care. It's also important to remember that during the 10 years when the other governments were in office, there was the removal of 10,000 beds. However, we did not have one single facility closed.

What we are attempting to do is ensure that patient care will be provided first and foremost. What that is going to mean is that we need to take a look at what is required for patients in this province at this time, and it's not unused hospital spaces. It means we're going to have to reinvest our money into the community supports and into long-term-care facilities. It means we're going to have to make some changes, changes that have been made everywhere else in Canada already.

Mr McGuinty: I think I've heard this tune before from the previous minister. This minister was going to slow things down. She was going to get a handle on what was happening over at the ministry. Your platitude that you just uttered will do nothing for the people of Ontario. Go out there and knock on a few doors. What you're doing to health care in Ontario is scaring the heck out of Ontarians. Just go out there and knock on a few doors and you'll quickly discover that.

Let me tell you why I'm really concerned. In your instructions to the hospital closing commission - I've got a copy of them here - it says, "The following are the duties of the commission." Duty 3 says it's up to the commission to determine the timing of the implementation of local hospital restructuring plans. How can you tell us, on the one hand, that you're going to slow things down; on the other hand, clearly your instructions to the commission, irrevocable apparently, are for it to make its own decisions about hospital closures in Ontario.

If you're really going to slow things down, you have to disband the commission. There's no other option. Why don't you just stand up and say that right now? "It's gone. We don't have to worry about it any more."

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I indicated to you, it is time to embark on reform in the field of health care in this province. The reform is long overdue. What we are simply doing is taking a look at the aging population, we are taking a look at the growing population, we are taking a look at the needs of the population in this province and we are now convinced that it makes absolutely no sense to have 10,000 beds being closed under your government and the previous government. So we are going to invest those dollars that were previously used on administration and unused buildings in patient care.

In fact, I will just read from a quote that was made by the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to the closure of hospitals, when you said: "I would have as an overriding objective improvement of our health care system. A component of that might be the closure of a hospital." So even you recognized that it is necessary to take a look at where -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party, member for Fort York. Come to order, please, Minister of Health.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a question to mon ami the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Yesterday we saw an unprecedented event: Conservative members voting against the government's download bill. On the radio this morning the member for Oakville South said that the government had botched the issue on downloading. I go further and say that they have botched the issue by downloading $1.4 billion to local taxpayers. I go further by saying they've botched the issue by dumping a ticking time bomb of $200 million in housing repair costs on the new megacity.

I go further and say you botched the issue by refusing to reveal the criteria for your transition funds, less than a month before municipalities start paying the bills.

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

Mr Marchese: To quote the member for Wentworth North, "We said we were going to run the government like a business, and here we are, less than a month to go, we still don't have the figures," says the member.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank my good friend for the question. The members of this party are more than free to express their opinions on any issue. In all parties, some members vote -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Leach: I know my good friend knows that members of his own party often voted against their government. Bill 167 I think rings a bell.

With respect to what we're doing with Bill 152 and the Who Does What trades, I will repeat once again that the effect of the Who Does What trades on municipalities is revenue-neutral. We have committed that it will be revenue-neutral, both myself and the Premier; 79 members of our caucus accept that. There are several who have doubts; that's their prerogative. However, Mr Speaker, I can assure you and the members that the exercise of the trades will be revenue-neutral for every municipality.

The Speaker: Supplementary; member for London Centre.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Minister, not only are you not telling the municipalities what the tax burden is going to be, but you're not even acceding, and you haven't today, that they're in danger of losing a lot of services.

The services we're most worried about are public health services, which your Who Does What panel clearly told you not to download on to municipalities. The protection of public health is a protection for all the citizens of Ontario. There are many programs that are likely not to have the same level of funding as they had when they were 100% funded by the province because you've downloaded that $1.2 billion more in costs to municipalities, and yet you're trying to suggest that they're going to be able to provide the same level of services.

Minister, we're very worried about what Bill 152 has done in terms of the guarantee of public health services, the protection of the health of the province. You botched the entire program. Are you insisting on botching the health of the population of Ontario too?

Hon Mr Leach: I'll try and make this as simple as I can for the members opposite. We're taking $2.5 billion off the property taxes by assuming 50% of the cost of education. We're also providing, on an ongoing annual basis, roughly $600 million in support to the municipalities. In exchange, the municipalities will accept about $1.3 billion in hard services on roads and transit and about $1.7 billion in social services. We're asking the municipalities to assume 20% of social services. So 1.7 and 1.3, and 2.5 and 0.6; in simple mathematics, that works out to be a wash. Even the members opposite might be able to understand that if they worked on it a little bit.

Mrs Boyd: No one believes you. You've heard from all the municipalities that they don't believe you. This is in no way a neutral wash. You put in a bill like Bill 152, which is going to make the choices of municipalities very clear. They will have to look at downloading services, or destroying services, because they will not have the dollars. What's more, you've taken away the authority of the medical officer of health and the provincial medical officer of health to override the decisions of individual municipalities.

Let's look at programs where municipalities have already cut: dental care in the city of Metropolitan Toronto, for example. They've cut it by 50% already and they're still meeting provincial standards.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mrs Boyd: The AIDS committee had a conference today and they're talking about the issue of anonymous testing for AIDS and HIV; they're talking about condom distribution; they're talking about needle distribution. These will now be up to municipalities to decide and the province will no longer be funding them. This is an erosion of public health -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know how much simpler I can make this. When you take $2.5 billion off the education property tax, add another $600 million of funding to municipalities, ask the municipalities to accept $2.5 billion of other responsibilities - 2.5 minus 2.5 equals zero. When they were in power, it was the member just speaking who said, "The result of disentanglement will increase accountability, which is more important than ever in today's economic climate." Absolutely. We're asking the municipalities to take control of programs that they're best able to deliver. That includes the health programs and everything else.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Beaches-Woodbine, Riverdale and London Centre, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: I heard the member opposite say "completely lost." I once was lost, but now I'm found.

To the member opposite, this is a trade. It's a trade in the delivery of services. It's a trade that's even and revenue-neutral. We've committed to do that. The municipalities understand that; most of the members understand that. Obviously, these people over here are too simple to understand it.

The Speaker: New question; the member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I didn't know the hymn Amazing Grace was written about Al Leach.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. The uproar over Bill 160 hasn't gone away. Let's look at your new property taxing powers. The provincial government will now be setting residential and business property taxes in secret. The government has given a few hints about how they're going to do it. The Ontario Alternative Budget Working Group has a report today that projects the impact based on the little information that the government has made public.

It shows that business property taxes in greater Toronto will increase by $139 million. Business taxpayers will be hit hard in Burlington and Oakville. They'll be going up 16%. In Mississauga, the education property tax on business will increase by 18.4%. What do you think Hazel McCallion is going to think about that?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Wildman: Don't you understand that people are upset about what you're doing in Bill 160 and they want you to rethink the whole process? Will you allow people to have a say -

The Speaker: Minister of Education.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): In general, I think the people of Ontario are very much in favour of reform in the education system.

I would say in particular with regard to those clauses that pertain to taxation, I think the member opposite will know that there is every indication as of this morning that this is a matter that will be, or indeed is, before the courts of the province of Ontario, so I'm somewhat restricted in terms of what I can say. But I will say, in terms of choosing the mechanism that we did, that the objectives were to halt the skyrocketing of education taxes which had taken place and to ensure that the tax system was fair and equitable across Ontario.

Mr Wildman: I suppose the government is now going to use this as an excuse for not giving us the funding formula: "The matter's before the courts."

The minister didn't agree with or deny the figures that are put out in the Ontario Alternative Budget Working Group document. These are projections of the impact. Why won't you release the impact studies that surely your government has done with regard to this? There are going to be winners and losers, and the power in determining who wins and who loses is all in your hands.

As the alternative budget says: "How much will be the change? Only Mike Harris knows, and he's not saying." How you decide, we'll never know.

Why won't you let us know how you decided this, what the impacts will be, so that business property taxpayers in the province will have some idea and the municipalities will have some idea of the impact of Bill 160 and your changes when you set property taxes for education?

Hon David Johnson: This is a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance. The Minister of Finance has stood in this House and indicated that there will be a freeze provision which will apply to property taxes in the future - that residential property taxes would be frozen, business taxes, in total - while there's a new assessment that's coming in. I think the members of this House have to bear in mind that there's a new property assessment system which will be introduced next year within the province of Ontario which will be a fairer system right across the province. That will obviously play into the equation as well.

Nevertheless, in terms of the businesses here today, in total they will not pay more in property taxes for education purposes than they're paying today. That is something that the business community has been asking for for years and years, and finally a government has come along and made that commitment.

Mr Wildman: The minister knows full well that his colleague the Minister of Finance said he was committed to a freeze in total revenue, not in individual property tax bills for education. He himself admitted there would be some going up and some going down, and not just because of reassessment. The fact is, there will be winners and losers, and it's this government that will determine which business property taxpayers are winners and which ones are big losers.

Do you agree that it is unacceptable for business property taxpayers in Mississauga to see over an 18% increase, or those in Burlington and Oakville to see over a 16% increase? Can you confirm those impacts, and if not, what are the projections that you've got in your government?

Hon David Johnson: Any numbers of that nature are pure speculation at this point in time. Again, the Minister of Finance has been here in this House and explained the situation, that the assessment numbers are being generated across the province. The vast majority of the assessment numbers are in, but there are some final numbers to come in to ensure that the Ministry of Finance has the total picture.

The Minister of Finance has indicated for the business community that the total taxes raised from the businesses which are here today will not exceed next year the revenues from this year. From business to business, depending on the assessment situation, the new assessment going in, some assessments may be up a little bit, some assessments may be down a little bit, and to that degree, yes, the Minister of Finance has indicated that the taxes paid by some businesses may be up, to be balanced by those which go down. That's the nature of a fair system.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is also for the Minister of Education. You and Mike Harris have tried to justify your cuts to educational spending by claiming that your changes to the educational system are going to bring about significant savings. You have refused to make a commitment to reinvest any of those savings, but that's not my question today.

My concern today is that your so-called savings are not going to be there at all and that some of your changes may actually lead to increased costs. You will know that your studies have shown that at best your amalgamation of school boards would lead to savings of $150 million. You also know that public school boards have said that in fact those amalgamations will lead to increased costs of $300 million to $500 million a year.

If the boards are right and you are wrong, will you cover these millions of dollars of increased costs or will school boards have to just eat those costs along with your cuts?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): If you have well over 100 school boards today and you have about 70 school boards in the future and you have that much less administration and that much less overhead, I think the people of Ontario would have every right to expect that indeed there will be savings through those amalgamations in the province. The kind of information we have had, including some assistance within the private sector, has indicated that $150 million is indeed a valid number.

In terms of the moneys the school boards will get, I'm sure the member opposite is aware through the booklet we put out, Excellence in Education: Student-focused Funding for Ontario, that there are moneys contained within the proposed formula for students through a foundation grant, through special purpose grants and through accommodation grants. These formulae are being revised at this time, going through their final stages. The boards will be totally aware of the exact amount of money in the very near future, and it will support their needs for their students.

Mrs McLeod: You really can't continue to play word games and express your vague sense of hope and expectation about educational financing much longer. You are now totally responsible for educational funding, and at some point you are going to have to accept that responsibility and tell us exactly what you are going to pay for and what you are not going to pay for.

Let me ask you a simpler funding question very relevant for today. Today you will force through another bill, Bill 161, and we still don't know what the costs of that particular bill are going to be. Nobody has said how much boards will have to pay to keep your commitment to pay the $40 per day per family.

There are boards that are worried that the costs of meeting your commitment will be greater than any savings they had during the two-week protest, and all boards are concerned that they are going to be expected to simply eat the administrative costs, which could mean thousands of dollars that should be spent on things like school supplies or school maintenance. Will you guarantee today that you will cover any additional costs of your commitment over and above any savings?

Hon David Johnson: It's expected that the vast majority of the boards will have revenues that were not expended because of the two weeks of the illegal strike and that those expenditures will indeed cover the costs of the $40 which will be paid to parents who have been inconvenienced and incurred extra costs up to $40 where they are eligible.

In those cases, and there may be some small boards, particularly boards that focus more on the elementary than on elementary and secondary, and if indeed those boards have incurred additional costs through the payment to parents who have had to incur expenditures beyond what the revenues have diminished as a result of the two weeks of the illegal strike, then yes indeed, the province of Ontario will ensure that those boards are not out money.

ALGOMA STEEL CORP

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, which I know will be of particular interest to page Sandra Lamon from Wawa. It's in regard to the very grave situation facing the community of Wawa as a result of the announcement last night by the Algoma Steel board of directors that there would be a complete cessation of the Algoma Ore division, mining operation and sintering operation in June 1998, affecting 220 employees and the whole economy of Wawa.

Algoma Steel stated that it is "committed to working with the community of Wawa and the provincial and federal governments in determining ways in which the community can be assisted in dealing with the impact of the closure."

I know the assistant deputy minister of northern development and mines is going to Wawa on Wednesday. Will he be there to announce that this government is prepared to participate in providing financial assistance for community adjustment for the people of Wawa and the community of Wawa?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member of the third party for the question. He and I have talked about this before, and he knows that we on the government side share his concern and heartfelt empathy with the community of Wawa. These situations are never easy. It's regrettable. This announcement, as he knows, was not unexpected; nevertheless, that doesn't make it any less painful for the people of Wawa.

As he mentioned, our assistant deputy minister will be there on Wednesday. I will be speaking with the president of Algoma Steel after question period today. We will be working with the community to see what can be done in the future.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate the minister's response and the fact that the assistant deputy will be Wawa. I would hope that the minister will join with the company and the community in providing financial assistance for dealing with the impact and in persuading the federal government to participate financially as well.

I appreciate the minister's response and anticipate that he's rejecting the position taken by Tom Long in June 1993, when he was quoted as saying, "The fates of struggling companies, each of which employ thousands of people, should be determined by market forces." Are we going to assist the community to respond to the market forces and to provide impact adjustment for the whole community, the business community and all the residents of Wawa?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I mentioned to the member for the third party, I share his concern for the community of Wawa and the members of his riding. We've talked about this in the past. We will work with the community and with Algoma Steel. I'm not about to commit to some announcement right here. I think it's best that we work with the community involved and see what's appropriate. I appreciate the question.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Mr Speaker, as you and the members opposite are well aware, the phrase "Think globally, act locally" is now more important than ever in the environment.

For the next two weeks, politicians from all over the world will be gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to discuss climate change. Minister, I understand that you will be attending this conference. My Eglinton constituents are very interested in the environment and Ontario's thoughts concerning climate change. Therefore, would you tell us about Ontario's position that you will be bringing to Kyoto in order to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): This is an extremely important subject and it has a very important environmental and economic effect on the province of Ontario. Last month, when I was in Regina, I met with other provincial environment ministers from across Canada. At that meeting there was agreement that we would stabilize our 1990 emissions by the year 2010, and there was a recognition as well by those provincial ministers that more had to be done than just stabilizing.

Presently the federal government has put forward a position that calls for a 3% reduction of 1990 emissions by 2010 and an additional 5% reduction by 2015.

When one relates these to economics, each per cent refers to about 75,000 jobs lost in your economy. Therefore, it is a difficult balance between our economic interests and our environmental interests when we are dealing in -

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

Mr Saunderson: Minister, just what has the United States proposed in terms of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions? Can you please state Ontario's position with regard to our largest trading partner to the south?

Hon Mr Sterling: The goals and the agreement of the United States are very important because our economies are so closely linked with each other. The United States has proposed stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels during the period 2008-12. I believe that Ontario and Canada must be very much in sync with where the United States will go in this particular conference.

I do not believe we can afford to lose a huge number of jobs when our overall effect on global emissions is somewhat small. We are willing, however, to step out and take our fair share of the pain that would be required with regard to reducing these emissions.

I will be working with the Canadian delegation to put forward their position in the strongest possible way. We understand that this is a serious problem and Ontario is willing to step up to the plate to make its contribution.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Minister of Culture. The people of Ontario are very concerned about your government's threat to privatize TVOntario, our province's enormously successful, commercial-free, educational television network.

At public hearings that have just wound up across the province - far too few hearings, I might add - the support for TVO to remain publicly owned and operated has been overwhelming: almost 100% support for maintaining the network as it is. Many other people, prominent and otherwise, who believe that TVOntario is a cultural and educational institution that must be protected have spoken out in support of TVOntario, with one conspicuous exception, Minister, and that is you.

The people need to know if you, as the minister responsible for TVO and as the hoped-for advocate for culture in this province, will fight for TVO at the cabinet table. My question is this: Minister, do you support the privatization of TVOntario?

Applause.

Hon Isabel Bassett (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): This is a question, as you know, for the minister responsible for privatization.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I can't hear you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Had we known that the minister was going to refer the question - we withdraw our applause.

The Speaker: I didn't even hear the minister, to be quite honest. Minister of Culture.

Hon Ms Bassett: Mr Speaker, I referred the question to the minister for privatization, whose area it belongs in now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister responsible for privatization.

Applause.

The Speaker: It's coming off your time.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank you to the minister as well. I'm sure the House will accord her a full round of applause next time she takes a full question.

To the member opposite, he is well aware of the fact that we are reviewing a number of government businesses through the privatization secretariat. One of them is indeed TVO. As part of the consultation process that we have implemented, we have elected to engage a group of experts to go around the province and to get some opinions from Ontarians, because we believe Ontarians have a role to play in the assessment of the government businesses we're looking at.

That's what we've put in place for the consultation round that was referred to by the member across the floor, and I'm quite pleased in fact that Ontarians were able to attend there and express their opinions on what they saw was important for TVO.

Mr Gravelle: I think it's shameful that the Minister of Culture will not speak on behalf of TVOntario - she is the minister responsible - and simply answer the question directly. It's quite shameful, it really is. I'm very disappointed.

May I direct my supplementary back to the minister, Speaker. Minister, if I may direct it back to you, I've had the benefit of attending most of the public hearings held across the province, including one in my home town of Thunder Bay, and people at the hearings have expressed grave concern that this public hearing process would not be listened to by you or your colleague, the minister of privatization. In effect, the integrity of this consultation process is very much in question unless you can guarantee that this consultation, short, hurried and underpublicized as it was, is taken seriously.

Minister, the people of Ontario who attended these hearings and the millions of TVOntario weekly viewers demand your support in at least two areas: First, will you guarantee that the community forum panel's report is made public by Minister Sampson immediately upon receipt, and will you fight to ensure that the people's voice, as expressed in that report, is the voice that counts?

Hon Mr Sampson: Again, Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to answer the question of the member across the floor. The consultation process that he was referring to is just part of the consultation process that we initiated for TVO. The member of course may not be aware of this, but if he would research the issue a little further he would find out that members of the secretariat have spoken to the regional councils that represent TVO viewers and members regionally as well. They spoke extensively with those groups.

As it relates to the community meetings that were had, I'm quite pleased that they were well attended and we had an opportunity to hear from Ontarians in select groups what they thought was important in TVO and what they would like to see the future of TVO look like. We definitely intend to listen to that because, as I said to the member across the floor, we think Ontarians have a role to play and we are going to listen to what they have to say.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. As the minister knows, student assessment and testing has value; it has value to parents, who, along with report cards, will be able to understand the progress of their students, their children in school. It's of value to teachers to help them to evaluate those students. But when it comes to the school-by-school reporting, the Education Quality and Accountability Office has done a great disservice to Ontario's students, teachers and parents by including students who were exempt from or absent from the exam in the calculation of the results.

Take, for example, Bowmore Road public school in east-end Toronto: 21% of the grade 3 students in that school were exempted from the test, and for 2% there were no data.

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

Mr Wildman: Here is how the test results were affected: Of the students at this school who wrote the grade 3 test, 92% achieved level 2, 3 or 4, but when you measure the outcome in relation to all grade 3 students at the school, including those who did not take the test, the result is only 71%. That's a 21-point spread.

How can you assure the accountability of this school system when you use these kinds of reporting methods -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): My friend the House leader for the third party and I may agree on this one. I think the Education Quality and Accountability Office has done a great service in general through this testing. I hope and I believe and I think I've heard the members opposite say that, yes, they support the testing as well.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: I am seeing that confirmed here at this point in time. In general, I think the testing for the grade 3s and the grade 6s has been of service.

I must say that it is coming to my attention that various students who were exempted, somehow in a calculation of some average numbers, were included as if their score were zero, in a sense. That's not anything, obviously, that the government has done, but the EQAO apparently may have made this kind of calculation.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon David Johnson: I can assure you that I fully intend to talk to the EQAO about this, because I would have a hard time saying it may not be a little misleading in that regard.

I assure the member that I will bring this to the attention at the earliest opportunity -

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: This was raised last week, as the minister knows, so I would have hoped he had acted quickly on this. He surely can't use these figures, as the government has done - he certainly can't use them as a benchmark.

Considering the fact that the Toronto Board of Education overall showed 74% of the grade 3 students achieving level 2 or higher in reading, 73% in writing and 77% in mathematics, but that when the exempted or absent students are taken out of the average, 88% of the grade 3 students achieved level 2 or higher in these three tests, will the minister request the EQAO to issue new results, taking those students who were given a zero out of the results so that we actually have an accurate benchmark and so parents will really know how their students are doing?

Hon David Johnson: Be assured that I will bring this matter at the earliest opportunity to the attention of the EQAO and ask that they reconsider how they may publish this sort of information in the future.

The information does cast some

interpretation, let's say, on the results school by school, but not student by student. The actual fact is that a level 3 is what is being expected of our students. A level 3 would correspond roughly, in general terms, to about 70%, I guess is how we would have thought about it in former terms, 70% or higher.

The reality, any way you spin it, is that our students are not being given the opportunity to achieve the results, a level 3 or higher, in mathematics, in science and in the other courses. This is of grave concern to the government. I think that's the major note in this, that our students should be given the opportunity to achieve.

RURAL JOBS STRATEGY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In 1995 the people of Perth county put their faith in me to deliver on a promise that the Conservative Party would restore jobs, hope, growth and opportunity. They have watched anxiously over the last two years as we have followed through on this promise and they have looked optimistically towards the future.

Each day we are seeing more jobs being created, yet there is still a sense of apprehension. The latest figures from Statistics Canada would seem to indicate that youth unemployment remains high. In total, nearly 17% of Ontario's youth are unemployed and actively seeking employment. This is not acceptable.

With the launch of our government's new $30-million rural jobs strategy fund, we have a tremendous opportunity to develop local initiatives that will create employment opportunities for our for our youth.

What strategy has the minister developed to address the problem of high unemployment among the youth in rural Ontario?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Perth for that question, because this government and this ministry have been very active. The rural job strategy fund -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: - and I'm pleased to hear from my colleagues across the way - is a $30-million fund. We were out and consulting. We consulted with the rural -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Isn't it amazing how the opposition has trouble accepting good news? It's absolutely terrible.

We are consulting with the rural community, the young people in the rural community. I want to commend my parliamentary assistant, the honourable member for Bruce, Barb Fisher, who is here today, who listened very closely to the rural community as they suggested what would be best for them. We are now putting into place, based on those consultations, oriented towards keeping our young people where they were born, raised and educated -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Bert Johnson: Previous governments have told the people of Ontario what they needed. This government is asking the people first, and we are seeing the results.

In an effort to increase the opportunities for youth, I understand that $3 million of the rural job strategy fund has already been invested through the summer jobs program for rural youth. I'd like to know if this program was a success and what its implementation will mean for youth in rural Ontario.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: We were quite successful. Actually, we targeted some 3,000 students for summer employment. The good news is that 4,300 young people found employment, partially through the support that was provided through the summer jobs creation project.

Rural Ontario has a great deal to offer through the upcoming consultations on young people. I want to commend Laura Perrin from Oxford county, who won our poster contest and indeed illustrated the importance of the agrifood sector and the rural community.

This $30 million - and somehow or other the opposition seems to think it's not very much money.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It's not.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Well, it's $30 million more than they had, and we've put it into rural jobs.

By cutting red tape and creating an atmosphere that is conducive for business, this government will create jobs in rural Ontario.

Mr Pouliot: Lies. You cut 30 million bucks.

The Speaker: You must withdraw that comment.

Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You had a chance to be fair with your Fair Municipal Finance Act, but apparently you decided not to be fair, because as a result of the passage today of Bill 149, there are 10 vulnerable women who are condemned to be removed from their home. Daybreak, which is a charitable organization leasing property from a church, another charitable organization, in spite of its charitable status has been assessed property taxes because it's leasing from a church. The shelter is faced with a $36,000 tax bill.

It will have to close its doors if it's forced to pay. It would then fall to the government to pay for taking care of these women. I'll ask you, are you still in favour of taxing charities, and are you prepared to see these 10 women put out on the street?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member opposite for the question. I obviously am not aware of the specifics of this particular situation he has brought up. If he would like to send it over, I'd be more than glad to look at it and get back to him.

However, I would like to say that the taxation changes we're bringing in, the assessment changes, are going to bring fairness and equity right across this province. I think everybody recognizes that the assessment and tax system in this province has been fractured and broken for many, many years. It's about time that some government stepped in and brought back the fairness and equity aspects to it. Obviously, there are going to be situations that arise that will have to be addressed. This may be one of them, and we would be very glad to look at that if he wants to send it across.

But again I have to say that the assessment changes in this province will bring fairness to a system that hasn't been there for many years.

Mr Patten: I would like to point out that you have in this case your ministry and finance undercutting an organization that is being supported for vulnerable women by community and social services. This particular organization was created by seven Centretown churches. They are a charitable organization. All the staff is underpaid - very dedicated, highly gifted, caring people working with vulnerable women who need support. You know what the waiting lists are like.

There's nowhere else for these women to go. If this goes through, they will be forced to close their doors at the end of the year. Will you please do something to ensure that they have a home come New Year's Day?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said, I'm not aware of the details of this situation. I will look into it and get back to him. I know there are many dedicated organizations that provide excellent service to people in need and this sounds as if it's one of them. But again I want to assure the House and assure the members and the people of this province that this government is addressing a very unfair assessment system that should have been addressed and fixed many years ago. This is going to bring fairness and equity to hundreds of thousands of people who are presently being unfairly taxed. We are going to correct that.

PETITIONS

RÉFORME DU SYSTÈME D'ÉDUCATION

M. Richard Patten (Ottawa-Centre) : J'ai une pétition pour l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que nous, les signataires de cette pétition, voulons signifier au gouvernement notre opposition au projet de loi 160 ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 exclut les parents et les enseignants du processus de décision -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Just a minute. We'll just wait until the House is cleared.

M. Patten : «Attendu que le projet de loi 160 exclut les parents et les enseignants du processus de décision dans le secteur de l'éducation en Ontario ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 centralise tous les pouvoirs entre les mains du gouvernement ;

«Attendu que le projet de loi 160 accorde au gouvernement Harris le pouvoir de retrancher 660 $ millions de plus du secteur de l'éducation ;

«Nous, les soussignataires, demandons que l'adoption du projet de loi 160 soit remise et que le gouvernement entreprenne des consultations véritables et franches avec tous les groupes concernés.»

J'appuie cette pétition.

ARREST OF PROTESTORS

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition signed by about 250 people. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, wish to protest against the treatment of the seven women who were arrested about 5:30 during the peaceful protest against Bill 160 outside the Holiday Inn in Guelph on Tuesday, November 18.

"The seven women were strip-searched and held in a maximum security detention centre until 12:30 am without being charged. This kind of treatment betrays the negotiations between the teachers and the Guelph Police Department prior to the peaceful demonstration.

"Besides being personally humiliated and sexually intimidated by being strip-searched, the women were put in a place that even one of the police officers recognized was dangerous. This became obvious when he warned the women that they must be silent because they were in a maximum security facility where there were men who were murderers and rapists.

"We protest against these fear-arousing tactics, which appear to be designed to deprive people of their civil rights and deny the democratic rights of people to hold a peaceful protest. We respectfully demand a public apology from the police department, where the decision was made to place the women in maximum security. We certainly expect an assurance that such treatment will not happen again.

"Since this happened at a political rally, it would also be appropriate for the Legislature to also offer an apology and an assurance that such treatment will not be tolerated."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 118 people:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public with respect to Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government,

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

CHARITY CASINOS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition to Premier Mike Harris, Minister William Saunderson and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas Mike Harris during the 1995 election promised voters he would not allow any more casinos without holding a community referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario has designated the Beaches community as one of 36 new permanent charity casino sites without holding a referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris says these permanent casinos are simply replacing roving charity casinos;

"Whereas roving charity casinos can only be set up for a maximum of three days, can't stay open all night, have no more than 30 tables and take a maximum bet of $10. On the other hand, the new casinos are permanent, operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with 40 tables, 150 video slot machines, and maximum bets of $100;

"Whereas Mike Harris dismisses concerns, saying the total number of gaming days in Toronto won't change;

"Whereas the nature of gambling will change dramatically with the introduction of the highly addictive video slot machines and much higher dollar volume operations, it being evident by the government's estimate that the new permanent casinos will see about $1 billion a year wagered;

"Whereas Mike Harris says the new permanent casinos will be safer and more accountable;

"Whereas at the Windsor casino extra law enforcement resources were provided by the province and the Harris government has made no such commitment for the new casino in the Beaches;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease any bids for the Beaches casino site, to fully consult with the community and not to force a casino site on the community against its wishes."

I have proudly affixed my signature.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the undersigned believes the current Young Offenders Act should be amended;

"The amendment should include a provision for stronger sentencing for offences like murder, robbery, rape and assault; and

"Whereas a clause should also be included to provide police with the necessary manpower to arrest anyone under the age of 18 years for violating current municipal curfew bylaws after 11 pm;

"The community of Etobicoke strongly believe that such a revision in the Young Offenders Act will keep minors from ever being involved in such serious criminal activity;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the federal government to amend the Young Offenders Act so as to toughen sentencing for the most serious offences and to provide the police with the necessary manpower to arrest anyone under the age of 18 years for violating current municipal curfew bylaws after 11 pm;

"We also believe parents should be fined $100 for repeat offences of the curfew bylaws."

I affix my signature to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, will do irreparable harm to Ontario's elementary and secondary schools; and

"Whereas Bill 160 centralizes control over education in Ontario in the hands of the provincial government; and

"Whereas the input of students, teachers and parents is crucial to maintaining and improving the quality of Ontario schools; and

"Whereas the provincial government of Ontario has confirmed its plans to cut further funding from education in Ontario; and

"Whereas students have demonstrated their opposition to the direction taken by the government in Ontario in regard to the education policy;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to halt passage of the Education Quality Improvement Act, Bill 160, and to maintain or increase funding to Ontario's elementary and secondary schools."

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

FINANCEMENT DE L'ÉDUCATION

M me Shelley Martel (Sudbury-Est) : J'ai une pétition à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que Mike Harris et John Snobelen avaient promis de ne pas apporter des coupures dans l'éducation au niveau de la salle de classe, et que depuis leur élection, le gouvernement Harris a sabré plus de 430 $ millions dans les budgets des conseils scolaires, ce qui représente près d'un milliard de dollars supprimé du secteur de l'éducation publique sur une base annuelle ; et

«Attendu que nos enfants ont déjà perdu 50 % du financement accordé à l'éducation spéciale, ainsi que les bibliothécaires et, dans certaines régions, les maternelles, et que de nombreuses écoles ont perdu leurs programmes de musique, et que le nombre d'élèves dans chaque classe a augmenté sensiblement - certaines écoles vont même perdre leurs autobus scolaires ; et

«Attendu que les parents à l'échelle de l'Ontario savent que la majorité des changements apportés au secteur de l'éducation ont pour but de supprimer un milliard de dollars des dépenses du gouvernement pour financer sa réduction d'impôts ; et

«Attendu que les parents savent que ces coupures affectent l'éducation dans les salles de classe et la qualité de l'éducation de leurs enfants ; et

«Attendu que les parents savent qu'ils n'ont pas été consultés ;

«Nous, soussignés, exhortons Mike Harris à cesser ces coupures qui affectent l'éducation et l'avenir de nos enfants.»

Cette pétition est signée par 12 électeurs dans la circonscription de Sudbury-Est, et je suis en accord avec eux.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm presenting this petition on behalf of the member for Waterloo North, who of course is precluded from presenting petitions in this House. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, illness or injury and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

CERTIFIED GENERAL ACCOUNTANTS

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

"Whereas it is in the best interests of the public to have open market competition among professional accountants; and

"Whereas, under the Public Accountancy Act, only chartered accountants have full access to public accounting licences in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario restricts certified general accountants more than any other province, with the exception of Prince Edward Island; and

"Whereas certified general accountants, whose training is identical to that of certified general accountants in the province of Ontario, have a statutory right to practise public accounting in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, are free to practise in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, can be licensed to practise in Nova Scotia and have considerable public accountancy rights in the province of Quebec; and

"Whereas this has created a monopoly in the province of Ontario since 1962 that is not only unfair to the public but also results in additional expenses, particularly to small business owners; and

"Whereas the monopoly results in NAFTA inequalities for certified general accountants in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas according full professional rights to certified general accountants would lower costs to business by creating competition in accounting and auditing services, which is consistent with the current government's initiative to introduce measures designed to reduce government interference in the private and business lives of Ontario residents; and

"Whereas certified general accountants in the province of Ontario are qualified professionals whose governing body delivers a rigorous and demanding program of professional studies, examines for professional competency, requires practical experience to qualify individuals as certified general accountants, has an established code of ethics and rules of professional conduct and an accompanying disciplinary process to ensure that the standards of the profession are maintained and that the interests of the public are protected; and

"Whereas the Professional Organizations Committee rejected the notion of a monopoly over licensed practices for chartered accountants and specifically supported and recommended the extension of public accounting licences to certified general accountants with experience in the field of public accounting;

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to grant the Certified General Accountants Association of Ontario their request for overdue amendments to the Public Accountancy Act to allow certified general accountants full access to public practice licences and to eliminate the present monopoly."

I affix my signature to these petitions.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition signed by approximately 50 people from the London area.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition the Lieutenant Governor to dissolve the Legislature and call a general election forthwith."

I am pleased to sign this petition.

TRAFFIC CONTROL

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition presented to me by John and Claire Callender of Nepean, with 140 signatures, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the volume of traffic travelling along the Queensway between Highway 416 and Moodie Drive has grown steadily in recent years due to population and industrial growth of Kanata, the addition of a third lane to Moodie Drive, the recent expansions of both Nortel and Newbridge, the evolution of the Corel Centre into the home of the Ottawa Senators and Ottawa's premier entertainment arena, and the opening of Highway 416 as a primary route connecting Ottawa to Highway 401; and

"Whereas this increased volume of traffic is producing levels of noise which are disturbing local residents both during the day and the night;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue to develop the roadways along this

section of the Queensway in order to accommodate the increased volumes of traffic, but to couple this development with measures, including the extension of a berm along the north side of the Queensway in the Crystal Beach area to mitigate the negative aspects caused by this traffic."

Because I'm in complete agreement, I have signed my own name thereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 161,

An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997 and to make a complementary amendment to the Education Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi favorisant le traitement équitable des parents et des employés en prévoyant des recours à la suite du retrait de services par les enseignants à l'échelle de la province entre le 27 octobre et le 7 novembre 1997 et apportant une modification complémentaire à la

Loi sur l'éducation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 2, 1997, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Flaherty has moved second reading of Bill 161. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1555 to 1600.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Members take their seats. All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bradley, James J.

Colle, Mike

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

McLeod, Lyn

Phillips, Gerry

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 9.

The Deputy Speaker: The motion carries.

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND EMPLOYEES ACT (TEACHERS' WITHDRAWAL OF SERVICES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TRAITEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES PARENTS ET DES EMPLOYÉS (RETRAIT DE SERVICES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS)

Mr Flaherty moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 161,

An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997 and to make a complementary amendment to the Education Act / Projet de loi 161, Loi favorisant le traitement équitable des parents et des employés en prévoyant des recours à la suite du retrait de services par les enseignants à l'échelle de la province entre le 27 octobre et le 7 novembre 1997 et apportant une modification complémentaire à la

Loi sur l'éducation.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Speaker: I believe there has been three-party agreement to split the time available on the clock for third reading.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Could I ask the members to please have their meetings outside or take their seats. The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It will be interesting to see the Hansard, because apparently my wife voted before I did today in the Legislature. She'll find that interesting.

It pleases me to stand today and talk about third reading of Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act.

As many people throughout Ontario know already, this act does three things: It gives a payment to parents for their inconvenience suffered during the recent illegal teachers' strike; it provides protection for employees against any discipline by employers if those parents of children affected by the strike needed to miss work or needed to be late for work, and it also protects teachers from union reprisals if those teachers, of their own conscience, decided to go to work that day or didn't do something which their union leaders had asked them to do. I think it's a very important bill.

The vote we just had was very interesting, because I saw in the Thunder Bay Chronicle just November 26 that they had interviewed the member from Thunder Bay:

"McLeod said Tuesday she doesn't begrudge the rebate, just its timing. The province hinted at a rebate during the strike.

"`It was a way of saying to parents: "Don't worry, we'll compensate you for any inconvenience or cost."'"

Yes, it is. I was surprised that after saying she didn't begrudge the rebate, this afternoon she voted against this bill.

I think I should say now, before I forget, that I will be trying to split my time, my 40 minutes, with Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, and the member for Sarnia, Mr Boushy.

In speaking to the bill, in the first stage of the bill, the first thing the bill does is provide for payment to parents or guardians. As most people know, this bill will provide for a payment of up to $40 per family for each day that an eligible child was unable to attend school because of the strike. This means a maximum of $400 for families whose children could not go to school for the full 10-day period of the strike. The

section would also apply if children were unable to attend school because transportation, for example a school bus, was not available or if special education programs or services for special needs children were not available, and if children did not attend school because, in the parents' opinion, they would not have been safely supervised at a school or school-based child care centre or nursery school.

The payment is available to affected parents and guardians, including those mothers and fathers who would normally stay at home, those who had to enlist relatives to help them, and parents who are themselves students in colleges or enrolled in training courses but were forced to miss classes during the strike in order to look after their children.

For the purposes of this legislation, "eligible child" refers to - folks should know this - school children 13 years of age or younger, children in child care facilities or day nurseries located in schools that were closed due to the teachers' action or special needs students in secondary schools.

The money for these payments, folks at home also should know, would come from the savings school boards have accumulated as a result of not having to pay striking teachers who did not go to work. Under Bill 161, the school boards will have the following responsibilities: identifying the appropriate school days, determining if students were prevented from attending classes because of the strike and administering the payment to eligible households. School boards will be responsible for ensuring that parents receive payment.

I urge all members to support speedy passage of this bill so that parents and guardians can immediately apply for payment through their children's schools and school boards.

During the debate we have had up to now on this, some of the members on the opposite side of the aisle have complained that no receipts are being asked of parents when they're going to get these payments. I have said on one occasion, and I'll state again today that the government trusts parents to file for the compensation that they rightly deserve. That's the number one thing.

The number two thing is in many cases people may have incurred costs that they wouldn't have receipts for. As I have said in the House before, perhaps someone would drive a good distance to drop their kids off at a grandparent's house or something to that effect. Obviously the grandparent wouldn't be giving a bill to the parent for looking after the children, or the parent wouldn't have a receipt for those kilometres driven and so on and so forth. It will become a bureaucratic nightmare. So we've decided this would be an entitlement.

Last, I think it should be noted that within the bill it is an offence to try to file for more than a parent is eligible to receive.

As I said, I was surprised that the member for Thunder Bay and nine of the Liberal members who were here to vote voted against this bill as they have said in the past that they were actually in favour of the idea of this rebate. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me because if you look at the history of the party, look back at their red book and look at how they voted on other items in this House, you can see there is actually quite a consistency of voting against things that they actually ran on a platform of doing.

For instance, the creation of a College of Teachers was something they had in there which we have done. We've heard a lot of complaints on that side of the aisle about standardized testing, which they called for. Even though now we've brought standardized testing in, we've heard several complaints.

If I read right from the red book, I see that they said, "We must make sure that we are getting value for our dollar." Well, that's exactly what this government has been saying we're trying to do within the education system. "As much as possible, our education dollars must be spent on classroom learning rather than administration." Again, we agree with that. That's something we've tried to achieve up to now and we think Bill 160 will help us achieve further.

Some other things they said in the red book: "The creation of a provincial core curriculum will help save money by eliminating the need for individual boards of education to develop their own core curriculums." Agreed and done. "So too will the establishment of local school councils, which will help shift decision-making out of the hands of bureaucracies and into the hands of parents." Again, in 160 we have put these school councils in legislation, so something they called for we have actually put in this bill.

I continue reading from the red book and what they asked for: "A Liberal government will further cut spending on administration and get rid of waste and duplication." How would they do that? "By reducing the number of trustees, placing a cap on the salaries of trustees, and recognizing the part-time nature of the job." Done, again, on this side of the aisle.

How else would they do that? The Liberals said they would do it by "clearly defining the role of school boards, publishing guidelines for spending on administration, and asking boards to publish an annual `report card' comparing their administrative spending with provincial guidelines." Well, that's also going to be done through the new funding formula and through Bill 160, where we will now have one form of reporting. People won't use different

definitions throughout the province; boards won't use different

definitions of what's administration and what's not. So again something asked for in the Liberal red book has been done on this side of the aisle.

Finally, the Liberals said in their red book that they would reduce spending in education by "encouraging school boards to increase efficiency and reduce costs by sharing expenses and looking for opportunities to share services with other public sector institutions." Again, we had already started that process and that's going to be enhanced with Bill 160.

Yesterday when we talked about the time allocation motion in this House, my friend the member for St Catharines went on at length about a situation - he read from an

article in the Globe - where he felt that some unelected members, staff people to all intents and purposes, of this government had too much authority. I didn't have a chance then to respond to him, but I would say that I can understand why he's so sensitive to this issue.

If one goes back and looks, there is one particularly good book out there called Not Without Cause: David Peterson's Fall From Grace, by Georgette Gagnon and Dan Rath. If one goes back and reads that book and looks at the history, one will find that Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, as the environment minister several times had difficulties with the staff in the Liberal Party overruling him and other ministers. Vince Borg, Gord Ashworth and Hershell Ezrin were three of the people who were - I guess Mr Bradley would refer to them as whiz kids in his day.

On a particular page, page 79, you read, if I can quote, "Discontent...crystallized around the Liberals' apparent support for land development at the expense of the environment." A paper came out, "a discussion paper entitled Reforming Our Land Use and Development System that seemed to put development ahead of the environment by cutting Bradley's power