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

April 30, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L183 - Wed 30 Apr 1997 / Mer 30 Avr 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

HOSPITAL BEDS

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LONG-TERM CARE

MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

SPEAKER'S RULING

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

INTERIM SUPPLY

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERY

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

COURT SYSTEM

ADULT EDUCATION

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

PROPERTY TAXATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

PETITIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

RENT REGULATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

YOUTH SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

TUITION FEES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EXPANDED NURSING SERVICES FOR PATIENTS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'EXTENSION DES SERVICES INFIRMIERS À L'INTENTION DES PATIENTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): On December 6, 1996, the Minister of Labour, Elizabeth Witmer, signed a new agreement with the province of Quebec to allow better access to the Quebec market for construction workers and contractors. Earlier this year, Premier Mike Harris endorsed this agreement with Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard.

Unfortunately, another construction season is upon us and still the Ontario construction workers and contractors are in the dark. They have not been well informed of the different dispositions of this new agreement.

The Ministry of Labour was to produce a booklet called the Guide to the Ontario-Quebec Agreement on Labour Mobility and Recognition of Qualifications, Skills and Work Experience in the Construction Industry. This booklet was supposed to be released January 31 of this year. We were told it would be ready February 15. It is now early May and we have yet to see this very important piece of information, and our construction people are not taking advantage of the December 6 agreement because they are still waiting for this user-friendly guide.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Just a couple of weeks ago I was out on the road across Ontario hearing from people about Bill 109, the act to change irrevocably forever the way we deliver library service in this province. We heard some wonderful presentations by all kinds of folks who love libraries.

One of them in particular I wanted to put on the record here today because I think it's interesting. It's a list of books that Moses Sheppard, a representative for the United Steelworkers, said Mike Harris should have to read. It's a top 10 list and it goes like this:

"

(10) How to Listen;

(9) How to Win Friends and Influence People;

(8) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest;

(7) To Kill a Mockingbird;

(6) Inherit the Wind;

(5) Foxfire -- I understand some of you want to ban Foxfire; shades of Peterborough. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

"

(4) Fiscal Crisis of the State;

(3) Fair Taxation in a Changing World;

(2) The Moral Basis of a Backward -- or a bankrupt -- Society, and finally, Robin Hood, and we've combined Robin Hood with the King James version of the Bible because, in many ways, they say the same things. They talk about taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The Bible supports that. And while some of you may not have heard of Robin Hood, we thought you might have at least heard of the Holy Bible."

CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to recognize that April is Cancer Awareness Month and to commend the thousands of volunteers who have been out in each of our communities knocking on doors and organizing special events to raise money and raise awareness in the fight against this horrible disease.

Cancer affects tens of thousands of Ontarians every year and one in three Canadians will develop some form of cancer during his or her lifetime.

Yesterday Premier Harris and Health Minister Jim Wilson announced a $16.5-million reinvestment for cancer care in this province and announced the creation of Cancer Care Ontario. This reinvestment will provide more services for 24,000 patients in Ontario, including those who need expensive new anti-cancer drugs, children with cancer and women at risk for cervical cancer. In addition, the creation of Cancer Care Ontario will ensure that cancer patient services across Ontario are integrated and coordinated so that patients receive the best possible service.

Our government is making significant reinvestments in cancer care and in direct patient services so patients can get the care they need, where they need it and when they need it. Our government is putting the patient first.

This announcement is part of our government's continuing commitment to reinvest and to drive health care dollars to front-line services that most benefit Ontarians. Restructuring our health care system means that more money currently tied up in administration, duplication and overlap will be reinvested in hospitals and front-line services for patients.

I would ask the members of the House to join me today in commending the thousands of Ontarians who have volunteered their time and energy this month to help in the fight against cancer.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My statement is to the Minister of Health. I would like to bring to your attention a situation that occurred with a constituent named Edward Stan. On March 20, Mr Stan suffered a heart attack while vacationing in Florida. He was admitted to Orange Park Hospital and was later transferred to a hospital in Jacksonville, Florida on March 26. Among other procedures, Mr Stan, a retired senior, has had open heart surgery, a tracheotomy and has received dialysis for a failed kidney while in Florida.

Now stabilized, Mr Stan could be transferred Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor. Dr Craig R. Pearce, a cardiovascular specialist, is prepared to care for Mr Stan. The problem is Hotel-Dieu Grace cannot receive him because there's not an available bed in the ICU. Although the hospital has confirmed with me they are working on the problem and they are hopeful Mr Stan may be transported and admitted within the next day or two, the fact is Mr Stan's medical costs have now far exceeded any amount he will be able to pay, primarily because there were no available beds.

Minister, it's inexcusable and intolerable that Mr Stan cannot be admitted to an Ontario hospital because there are no beds. It's clear that your cuts have directly affected patient care. I ask the minister to intervene in order that Mr Stan's medical costs will be covered by the province, since it's abundantly clear that your cuts to our health care system have precipitated this situation.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On Monday, April 28, the minister of privatization, Rob Sampson, rose in this place to present his government's long-delayed privatization framework. Bay Street entrepreneurs and indeed corporations around the world watched in eager anticipation. This was their kind of guy, representing their kind of government. Finally the private sector would get their hands on assets already paid for by Ontario's long-suffering taxpayers. Visions of public sector institutions danced in their heads: Ontario Hydro, the LCBO, TVOntario.

Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth, the roars of outrage, the sense of betrayal among those people who thought the Tories were going to hand them, at bargain basement prices, some of our finest public institutions?

I and my colleagues are pleased that Mr Sampson and his $245,000-a-year executive assistant have collapsed. They are in full retreat. They have blinked.

This is what Mr Sampson has offered his ideological brothers on Bay Street and elsewhere: Ortech, a research agency; a few tree nurseries; the convention centre; and the Province of Ontario Savings Office. That's right; not LCBO, not Ontario Hydro, not TVO.

Oh, Mr Speaker, the shame of it all. Mr Sampson, you must either demand a return to the back bench or a promotion to cabinet. Don't demean yourself any further.

PETERBOROUGH ECONOMY

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise to inform all members of this assembly about a manufacturer in my riding that recently launched another product packaging innovation. In Canada the Minute Maid company is based in Willowdale and employs 150 people with a frozen juice manufacturing operation in Peterborough. The plant recently launched the new easy-peel ring on its line of frozen juices and drinks, making it easier for consumers to use the product. This new product line is the result of two years of research and development by Mississauga-based Sonoco Containers.

The facility in Peterborough is a model operation. Since it opened in 1985, production has quadrupled, employment tripled, and the variety of products manufactured has increased tenfold, all positive signs of growth. The plant is unionized under the United Food and Commercial Workers and enjoys excellent labour relations. The Peterborough operation is recognized within the Minute Maid company among the top plants for safety, environmental compliance, productivity, product quality and innovation.

Let me congratulate the Minute Maid company and the local workers for their innovation and hard work. Their contribution to the community of Peterborough has been positive, rewarding and beneficial for everyone involved.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): For well over a year I have witnessed the government's heavy-handed and dictatorial approach to the restructuring process in Ontario. I'm deeply opposed to the government's unilateral decisions to force amalgamations on municipalities, school boards and hospitals. The Premier's plan to dump the whole gamut of social service costs on to property taxpayers is nothing short of a disaster.

Now Kent county has fallen under the axe. The government's process for restructuring in Kent is no better than the disastrous process used in Metro Toronto. The Mike Harris plan is fundamentally flawed. The Harris government has forced restructuring on to municipalities without adequate information, based on one-sided arguments and unproven speculations. In Kent the process has been driven at breakneck speed, forcing a wedge into local government and creating incredible stress and divisions within our communities. It is feared that 500 jobs will be lost and with them the responsiveness to local needs.

Both rural and urban centres feel they have lost their democratic voice. The die is cast. There is no choice left for the 23 municipalities of Kent. But rest assured the people of Chatham-Kent will have a voice about Mike Harris when the next provincial election is called.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): In 1996 this Conservative government removed the requirement that 2.25 hours of hands-on care per day be provided to residents in long-term-care facilities. Residents, families and health care providers in homes for the aged and nursing homes know that removing this guaranteed level of care has resulted in a deterioration of the quality of care and life for those living in long-term-care facilities.

In Sudbury health care workers have brought attention to this serious problem in a special way. CUPE Locals 3607, 1182, 2219 and 148 organized A Penny for Your Thoughts campaign -- 2,889 workers, residents, families and friends each donated one penny to send a message to Mike Harris: Rethink your thoughts around long-term-care funding and levels of care in our institutions.

Each person who donated a penny believes this is a shameful situation and wants the 2.25 hours of care reinstituted immediately. They also believe Mike Harris should spend 24 hours at a long-term-care facility to witness at first hand how his cuts are affecting seniors and those who are developmentally challenged.

On behalf of CUPE workers at our area institutions, the member for Nickel Belt and I present these 2,889 pennies to the Premier. We believe he must rethink his thoughts on mandated levels of care. Mike Harris must spend a day at a nursing home or home for the aged so he can know about the impact of his cuts. He might then understand that our seniors deserve better.

MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): It's my pleasure to stand in the House today and announce that once again the riding of Perth is to be the focus for change in Ontario.

Today is the first day of the 44th annual meeting of the Ontario small urban municipalities

section of AMO. The conference is being held at the Victorian Inn on the Park in Stratford from April 30 to May 3 and is being hosted by His Worship Mayor David Hunt of the city of Stratford.

During these times of change, it's important for everyone to work together to ensure a prosperous future for Ontario. This conference gives small urban municipal leaders from across Ontario the opportunity to have input into the issues which concern them most.

This year's conference will include discussions on urban-rural restructuring, economic impact of hospital restructuring in rural Ontario, changes to the provision of services within municipalities and the new Municipal Act.

There is no doubt that there is need for change in Ontario and that municipal governments are a big part of the solution. Municipalities provide strong and effective leadership and are a vital and essential component of government.

It's a great honour for the city of Stratford to be hosting this conference where so much of the future of Ontario municipalities will be discussed. As a matter of fact, this is the second year in a row that Stratford has received this distinction. In itself, this is quite an achievement, and it shows that whether it's in municipal governance, manufacturing or agriculture, the riding of Perth is number one when it comes to setting an example for the rest of Ontario.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You know, I think I have a point of privilege; I also have a ruling. Can I do it after ministry statements and before question period? Thank you.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I rise to announce that today our government intends to introduce nurse practitioner legislation to remove the red tape, making it easier for nurse practitioners to deliver services to patients.

The Expanded Nursing Services for Patients Act will improve access to primary care services across the province and means that, if the legislation is passed by this House, more patients in Ontario will soon be able to receive more health care services from nurse practitioners.

We know that these are difficult times for nurses and other health care providers. The goal of restructuring, however, is not to save dollars; it is to redirect resources to front-line patient care. For example, we are making reinvestments to create opportunities for nurses to provide care to people in various settings. Our recent announcements of funding for the healthy babies program will create new jobs for public health nurses, and reinvestments in long-term care and hospital-based priority programs will create hundreds of new nursing positions.

We know from experience in other jurisdictions such as Britain and Australia that once restructuring is complete there will be even more opportunities for nurses.

Today's initiative is just one example and just one part of our vision for health care reform. Once passed, the Expanded Nursing Services for Patients Act will legally recognize nurse practitioners and will enable them to practise to their full potential within a multidisciplinary health team. Nurses play a valuable role in our health care system, and this legislation recognizes their contribution in providing care to patients.

This legislation amends the Nursing Act and other related acts and sets out regulations that allow nurse practitioners to communicate a diagnosis of common disorders or diseases, prescribe and administer certain treatments and certain medications, order certain ultrasounds and basic X-rays and order basic lab tests.

There are already more than 200 nurse practitioners working throughout the province in communities such as Ottawa, Hamilton, West Lorne, Cambridge and Lanark, to name just a few. Until now, they have had to get a physician's written approval before proceeding with treatment decisions. Today's announcement and the passage of the legislation will help remove the red tape and end the paper-chase. It will promote physicians and nurses working together to deliver quality care to patients.

For example, Linda Jones, a nurse practitioner working in a multidisciplinary team in the southeast Ottawa community health centre, told us that she has a 300-page protocol manual to legally support her current practice. We want to take the time that doctors and nurses put into this kind of paperwork and put it into providing services to patients. The ministry has received more than 900 letters of support for this initiative from nurses and physicians over the past two years alone.

Prior to introducing this legislation, the ministry, under the previous government, conducted numerous consultations, and those consultations continued over the last two years. Health experts and analysts agree that nurse practitioners will complement and enhance our health care system and will mean better all-round care for patients. Research done in Canada and in the US supports those views as well.

Today's initiative will help create jobs for the 30 nurse practitioners who graduated from Ontario's post-degree university certificate program last year and the 96 more nurses expected to graduate next September. It also means that primary health care centres, clinics and emergency departments of hospitals will be able to take advantage of the skills of nurse practitioners. Patients will benefit from more comprehensive health care.

Our legislation also addresses the need for additional health care providers in northern and rural underserviced communities. Physicians have told us that they need professional support in these communities. Nurse practitioners will be able to provide that support.

We believe our actions will lead to better collaboration between nurse practitioners, family physicians and other health providers, which means better all-round care and enhanced services for more patients. This will support our government's vision for quality health care in Ontario, providing the right care in the right place at the right time.

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly recognize some of the many nurses who have supported the introduction of this legislation. Present in the members' gallery today are Dr Charlotte Noesgaard, president of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario; Ms Carol Sargo, president of the Nurse Practitioners Association of Ontario; Ms Barb Wahl, president of the Ontario Nurses' Association; Ms Lynne Purvis, nursing practice adviser from the College of Nurses of Ontario; and Dr Alan Hudson, CEO of the Toronto Hospital.

I would be remiss if I did not also recognize Dr Dorothy Hall, the distinguished nurse who began this initiative, and Ms Cheri Vigar, the president of the College of Nurses.

Nurses provide top-quality care to tens of thousands of people each and every day in this province. This new legislation will make it easier for them to provide more services to patients.

The previous government referred this matter to the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. This government has moved beyond that to introducing the legislation, and I look forward to all-party support on this important initiative on behalf of nurses, a crucial part of our health care system in Ontario.

Interjections.

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

I have a point of order for the member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I think we should at this time recognize Ruth Grier, the former Minister of Health, who is in the members' gallery and originally made this announcement in this House, with the support of the Liberal Party, of course.

The Speaker: As a matter of fact, I had a note to do this at the appropriate time, and clearly the member has usurped me. I welcome the ex-member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ms Ruth Grier.

Responses?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I'm certainly pleased to rise today on an unusual occasion, an occasion on which we can actually say to the government, "You did something good."

We support the recognition of the work of nurse practitioners as important primary health providers in this province and we look forward to the full development of this in a manner that will make this an important development for nurses in this province. We look forward to the funding that will allow nurses to be able to train and to practise in this newer profession that is finally, after a very long period of time, being brought forward by this government. We cannot continue in the vein of supporting the government, however, in the sense of its overall approach to nurses.

This day is most appropriate to celebrate with nurses who are, with good reason, coming to get what is a small piece of good news for them -- small in the sense of the number of nurses it affects; important and significant in the sense of what it could augur for the future, but small given the context that you, Minister, have put nurses in this province into. The kind of work conditions that you have created for the vast majority of nurses is reprehensible.

The kind of future, the long finger of apprehension and fear that you have put into nurses' lives in no way reflects the respect and the positive feelings that most Ontarians feel towards nurses and indeed towards other health practitioners.

I attended a press conference with you on some of your rehashed reannouncements of funding that you promised many times before, just as you promised this legislation many times before, and in that I heard you make a comment which I think is unfortunately more indicative than the good news you bring today of the approach of your government towards practising nurses in this province. You said you had yet to receive one phone call from one unemployed nurse in this province and therefore you assumed everything was fine for nurses.

There have been thousands of nurses -- and the other day in this House -- who have lost their jobs, not because of happenstance, not because of technology, but because of your decision and your disdain for that profession as expressed in your actions.

Minister, you also expressed the other day that some 15,000 nurses had been through a program of being able to fit back into the economy. Instead, less than 4,000 have travelled through that program. Again, what nurses need is indeed a minister sensitive enough to understand the value of nurse practitioners, believing enough in the future of public health care to see different ways and different points of entry for practice, but also a minister who is capable of defending the key ingredients to any changes to health care in the future, which are the human resources that exist in it today.

What we would have liked to hear from you is some form of commitment to nurses in general. We would have liked for you to say that we recognize that the true value of the excellence we have in our health care system today lies, because of their numbers, largely with the nurses we have; indeed with doctors and other practitioners, but it is the 120,000 nurses we have in this province, or that we have had, who really bring us the quality and the value that we have in our health care system.

I talked to nurses recently in hospitals. I talked, for example, to obstetrics nurses who are now compelled by your cutbacks to the hospitals in which they work to do things like exit mothers after one day's worth of care. They're doing this with all the skill that their profession enables them, with all the care that you allow them, but they know their patients are not happy; they know their patients are not pleased to be moved out of hospital that quickly.

They know, most of all, that the community services which should be there for those patients, which should allow those nurses to discharge their responsibilities with a sense of care and concern, aren't there. They're not there because you're not showing the due regard that nurses require from you.

What we need to see, for those nurses, for the nurses across the province, is some form of plan. We need not just this long overdue legislation for nurse practitioners, we need a human resource plan that makes a commitment to the people who've invested their time and their energy and their care in caring for sick Ontarians. Minister, you don't show enough regard for that in this House. You don't show that in your actions, you don't show that in your hospital restructuring commission that is closing hospitals with abandon, with not one human resource plan yet being tabled, yet 24 hospitals are being closed. Minister, that's wrong.

We say to you, thank you for doing a little bit of what's right today, but we look forward to much improvement on behalf of the nurses in the province.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's indeed pleasurable to have some good news in the health field from this minister, and I want him to know very clearly that our party supports this move. He knows that. He knows that the member for Beaches-Woodbine, when she was in his office, and that the former member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore worked very hard on this material for a long time. Frankly, it was not very becoming of the minister not to have recognized the work that went on by these two members, and also not to recognize the work of the Ministry of Health employees who are here to celebrate today, because they have done a lot of this work.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): This is long overdue.

Mrs Boyd: We all know, those of us who have been in government, that we simply cannot do this kind of work without many, many years of research, of negotiation and of work around the policy issues, and that is what has happened in this case.

The member for High Park-Swansea was heard to say loudly a few moments ago, "This is long overdue," and he's right. It's at least two years overdue, because this legislation was drafted and ready when our government left office and it has taken a long time for you to bring this forward.

It is very, very delightful to see the coalition of groups that support and represent registered nurses and registered practical nurses in the province, and I congratulate all of you who are here today and all your members for the kind of work you've done to ensure that this day arrives.

What the minister has announced is very important indeed, and I am delighted that he is very clear that he does not see this as a cost-saving measure. What I am concerned about is that he provides us with no information as to how nurse practitioners are going to be paid under this legislation. We will be waiting very eagerly to find that out, because it is extremely important for us to understand that this piece of legislation is coming forward without the full primary care plan that has been promised and promised and still has not come forward.

Is the money to pay nurse practitioners going to come out of the already very, very stressed budgets of community health centres? Community health centres are for the most part the primary employers of nurse practitioners. Or are we going to ask physicians, who are some of the other primary care specialists in the province, to share some of the resources that have been allocated their way? We don't know.

We don't know whether nurse practitioners are expecting to be paid differently and we are not sure until the minister makes it clear that the legislation will see these well-paid, very highly trained professionals able to work within our communities. I think he owes it to us to answer that question.

Another issue I'd like to point out to the minister is that in the expanded scope of practice that he outlines here there is nothing about the ability of a nurse practitioner to refer to a specialist. We know in terms of the midwives legislation that they are unable to refer to specialists because there is no mechanism for the specialists then to get paid in this province.

We anticipate that as this goes forward, those are very serious questions that we will have to be raising, because the kind of vision the minister presents, with which we agree, around nurse practitioners having that primary care function means that without the gatekeeping function of physicians and without their ability to get to the next stage of specialty, in some cases, it is going to be very difficult for them to practise as they were meant to practise and to deliver the kinds of services you envision.

While we are supportive of the legislation -- not that we've seen it of course; we assume that we will be supportive of it; we will be looking at it very carefully -- we will have some areas of question and possibly, depending on how the legislation is worded, some amendments that need to be offered. This is a very important piece of legislation. It is not the kind of legislation we would be prepared to pass without thorough scrutiny and consultation with the experts in the field, who are the nurse practitioners themselves.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Yesterday the member for Dovercourt, Mr Silipo, raised a point of order with respect to standing order 106(

g) concerning the referral of intended appointments to the standing committee on government agencies. The member suggested that certificates of intended appointments to the transition team and the financial advisory board provided for in the City of Toronto Act, 1997, should have been referred to the government agencies committee.

The member for Dovercourt may in fact be correct. It may be that these two bodies are defined as agencies, boards or commissions, and that intended appointments to them are subject to committee review. However, there is no way that I as Speaker can make that determination.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the government House leader stated yesterday, there are numerous examples on the record of appointments made without referral to the government agencies committee. The fact is that the government defines what is an agency, board or commission, and it is the government that knows of its own intent to make an appointment. The starting place for the government agencies committee is the certificate it receives from the public appointments secretariat. It does not ferret out appointments that should have been referred but weren't.

Likewise, there is no way that a Speaker could possibly be in a position to determine which intended appointments should or should not be referred to the committee. Therefore, I don't find your particular point of order in order.

Interjections.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I have a point of privilege from the member for Sudbury East. The members for Brampton North and Chatham-Kent, if you have any more interest in proceeding with that discussion, do so in the lobby. Thank you.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Mr Speaker, I would like to raise a point of privilege under

section 21(

a) of our standing orders, which reads as follows: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

I believe that my privilege as a member has been breached, and I'm going to ask for your indulgence to explain the situation, and I ask for your intervention to make sure that my rights are restored.

Briefly, the matter is this: You will know that beginning last September, members of this caucus have been very vocal in their criticism of the cuts to the family support plan and we have raised many, many cases in this House on behalf of our constituents who have suffered serious financial consequences as a result of the cuts. In November my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold and I went to the Downsview office to see how it was functioning and discovered, of course, that the place was in an absolute shambles, and for our efforts we were rewarded with a police investigation of break-and-enter and trespassing.

Given all of our efforts to get at the root of the problem of the plan and of the problems at the Downsview office, you would no doubt be as surprised as we were to learn late last evening that members of the Conservative caucus this morning began tours of the Downsview office to see the office and to meet the staff, and in fact these tours for the caucus of the Conservative Party are going to continue over the next eight weeks. The executive assistant to the Attorney General told our staff that an invitation for opposition members to tour the building had not been extended.

When a staff person for my colleague the member for London Centre called and said that she wanted to participate this morning in a tour of the building, Mr Moran, the executive assistant to Charles Harnick, said that he would allow her to participate, but he did not have the details of the tour this morning. This is the executive assistant. In fact, he never returned our call until after the tour started this morning.

I am very angry about this situation. I find it unacceptable. I find it a complete display of contempt for the opposition members, who have raised serious concerns about the operation of this office, that the Attorney General would extend an invitation to tour this facility and to talk to staff of only the government caucus. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that this is a government facility, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, the staff employed are paid by the taxpayers of Ontario, and it is not acceptable that this privilege be allowed only to the government caucus.

You will know that the practice and indeed the protocol around here are that if government employees are going to be used in any exercise of information sharing, that has to happen with members of all three caucuses. I remind you that next week for the budget lockup, for example, that is indeed what is going to happen.

I believe that my rights and my privileges as a member have been breached. The Attorney General has shown contempt for members of the opposition, particularly those who have raised concerns, and I would like you to intervene to ensure that all members of this House will be treated equally.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It has always been the intention of the ministry to allow anyone who wants to go through the family support plan to tour the facility, Mr Speaker, and we have --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Oh, especially now.

Ms Martel: After we found out.

Mr Laughren: What a class act.

The Speaker: Order. Just a minute, Attorney General. Members opposite, it's very difficult for you to stand on a point of order and have the response made and for me to hear it if you're heckling and barracking back and forth. I give the opportunity to the Attorney General because it's within his rights to say it. I ask you to allow him to state his case. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: It's certainly our intention to have small tours arranged. We will be going caucus to caucus. In fact, we offered a tour to the member for London Centre and she indicated that she would get back to us. So it's not the intention that this be something just for government caucus members. We intend to allow small groups to tour the facility and it's our intention to go around to each caucus.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Further to that point of order, on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Since my name has been mentioned by both of the other parties, I want to make it clear that it was after we found out that the caucus of the Tory party had been offered this that my office called.

What is extraordinarily offensive to me as a singled-out member is that the executive assistant to the Attorney General -- on hearing that the Attorney General himself last December, when we were talking about the bill that he was bringing through on family responsibility -- offered a tour to me and not to the rest of my caucus. So it is a double breach. It is not appropriate to offer it to only one person in the way that he did, when he found out that his superior had already offered that tour.

The Speaker: Let me say quickly that, as Speaker, I cannot compel nor direct any minister or any member to offer tours, of any place for that matter, to people within the chamber. I appreciate the fact that the member for Sudbury East brought the point of order forward, but it is completely up to and at the discretion of the ministers, and they must have the ability to offer tours --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Fort York -- to whom they --

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): No way.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party -- to whom they would like to offer them. With the greatest respect, I cannot direct ministry staff to give tours to opposition members. It isn't within my power. If the minister is suggesting here today that he is prepared to offer up that opportunity, that's completely up to the minister. It is not something that I can direct ministries, ministers or premiers to do.

Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I do not wish to engage in a debate with you on this, but I can recall that when we were in government it was made very clear to us by people who are steeped in the traditions of this place that if we were, for example, as a ministry or minister to give a briefing to any caucus, that had to be extended to all three caucuses. That was a tradition in this place. You could not use the public sector to single out particular treatment to one caucus and not the other two. I think my colleague from Sudbury East has a good point and that the Attorney General has goofed.

The Speaker: With respect to the member for Nickel Belt, that is a debating point, and I'm not suggesting the last comment isn't. Let me say, from a point of being accessible and reasonable, that point you make is acceptable. From a point of compelling a minister to give a briefing or to give a tour to the opposition, I don't have that power.

Mr Laughren: It's a privilege.

The Speaker: No. I don't have that power to direct. I say to the member for Nickel Belt, if you would like to come back tomorrow on a point of order and cite me examples where a Speaker has directed a minister to provide a briefing or provide a tour, I'd be happy to see them. But having looked at this, not just at this time but in the past, I cannot compel a minister to give a tour or briefing to any specific member of this Legislature.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is this the same point of order? Because I have ruled.

Mr Silipo: No, I'm not going to quibble with your ruling. I would say to you that if your ruling is that you cannot compel a minister, I think that is one thing, and I think that if we find precedent to the contrary, we'll obviously raise that with you. But I think there's a distinction between whether you can do that, whether you can compel a minister to take certain actions or not, and whether you find that in fact a member's privileges have been breached.

I think that you need to rule, sir, on the point of whether a member of the opposition who was denied the same opportunities that are offered to a member of the government, rising on a point of privilege -- I think there's an issue of privilege that has been breached, and I think that on that point you can and should rule, and obviously I would urge you to rule in favour of finding that there has been a breach. Then, what the remedy is is another matter.

The Speaker: If you would like to cite me the head of privilege where I could even begin to hang my hat on that type of ruling, I'll examine it, but I don't know where that is, and I can't see where I could possibly begin to accept that argument. With the greatest respect, there's lots of informations within caucuses that are not shared amongst all members, all kinds of informations, and I --

Ms Martel: He's a government employee. Government employees --

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, I did hear your point of order at great length. I don't know the head of privilege where I would find an argument that would make me force a minister, compel a minister to offer tours to opposition members. I understand where you're saying privilege has been usurped or breached. If you cite me a heading, I'll be happy to look at it.

Point of order, member for St Catharines.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, that I rise. Perhaps "Intimidation of the Legislature" might be the category it's under and I'll ask you to look into it. I'll be quite brief. It is an edict that comes from the office of the Secretary of the Management Board of Cabinet, and it says, "There has been a regrettable delay in the passage in the Legislature of the motion for interim supply to authorize government spending for six months beginning May 1, 1997."

First of all, I wasn't aware that the office of the Secretary of the Management Board of Cabinet was to tell this Legislature how it should deal with specific motions that are before the Legislature, and it seems to me that the office of the Secretary of the Management Board of Cabinet is trying to intimidate the Legislature or place pressure on the Legislature to deal with a specific motion in a specific period of time.

As you would be aware, Mr Speaker, and as all members of the Legislature would be aware, the government has the opportunity to bring forward a supply motion much earlier in the month, at any time earlier in the month, and to have it appropriately debated. Interim supply allows an opportunity for members of the Legislature to deal with matters that aren't always contained within the purview of a piece of legislation or another motion and is often a good opportunity for members to be able to canvass those issues, because they all deal with expenditures by the government.

My main concern, however, in this case is -- and I guess the Chair of the Management Board will help clarify this, but I think the office of the Secretary is a civil service position, and it seems to me when an edict of this kind is put out, that it could be judged as an effort to intimidate or direct the Legislature in the way it should deal with a particular motion.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Well, I guess two words come to mind: total nonsense. There is a need if paycheques, for example --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: In the lives of many working people the paycheque is a very significant event, every week, or two weeks, or month or whenever it comes in. People normally get to plan their life around the arrival of the paycheque or the funds appearing in their account through electronic means. It only makes good sense to inform people if that particular paycheque could be delayed. In this case the government has allocated two full days to the interim supply, we're going into the third --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the members to come to order. Member for Cochrane North, thank you. Member for Cochrane North, I'm not going to debate it. Government House leader, I'm not really interested in hearing about the length of time of your debate, etc. The point of order was about this letter. If you could address the letter, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: To the best of my knowledge, the letter is simply an information piece. It in no way affects or intimidates this House. To read it in that light is utter nonsense. We all know that. There's a requirement to inform people if there's a possibility. I haven't got a copy of the letter, but from what has been read to me, I can only take it that it's simply an information letter to inform members -- probably gone out on a fairly broad basis, members of the civil service, perhaps elected representatives, I'm not sure -- of the possibility of a delay in their cheques.

I think people would want to be informed of that fact and I suspect that there would be severe criticism if people were not informed and if indeed it did happen, which is quite a distinct possibility given the situation we're facing here today.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr Speaker, I rise on this point partly because I was the one who was speaking last yesterday evening when the House adjourned. But in speaking specifically to the letter that has been written and the words "regrettable delay" in it, I wonder if the Chair of Management Board would tell us how is it that he has suddenly become so concerned with people getting paycheques -- the ones he hasn't laid off, of course -- at this late date, when he had an opportunity to have this supply motion debated last Thursday and because he bungled it --

The Speaker: Member for Nickel Belt, I appreciate that input, but I'm trying to deal with the letter. His point of order really was out of order.

Hon David Johnson: Then rule him out of order.

The Speaker: Well, I did stand and rule them out of order, with the greatest respect, and I ruled you out of order as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This appears to be an eventful day we're having today, so I would ask the members to come to order.

Let me say to the members that, having read the beginning of this passage, I must admit that I think I should reserve on this particular letter. I think there may be an opportunity to review it. I heard only the first paragraph. I've had opportunity to read that. I haven't read the whole letter, but I will tell you that I will reserve and report back with respect to the propriety of the letter, the contents, and I will try to ascertain the dimensions of how far it was sent and to whom it was sent. I think that's the best I can do at this time.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC GALLERY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a separate point of order, Mr Speaker: Earlier today there were it looked to me like hundreds of adult learning students lined up to come into the House, many of whom are from my riding. Looking in the chamber, I would say that many of them have not been admitted. I realize there are tours, I understand that, but I would like to know what happened to those students who were lined up. Will they be able to get in, or have they been put in an overflow room or what?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, I can help you on that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Well, I always need help, so I will ask the member for Fort William.

Mrs McLeod: There are in fact several hundred adult education students who have come down to make their concerns known to the Minister of Education. Clearly it was impossible to accommodate them all in the gallery. The security has opened up an overflow. They can accommodate some 30 to 40 more. I am not sure that many more could be accommodated, but I hope as the tours leave, they will process more of the people outside.

The Speaker: To you, as those people leave and come and go, so many will be accommodated as well. I thank the member for Fort William for her assistance and we will do our very best.

Ms Churley: Thank you.

The Speaker: You're welcome. It's time for oral questions.

VISITORS

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Oh, actually, I was just going to do that. I thank the Minister of Agriculture for reminding me. I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Her Excellency Susana Ruiz Cerutti, the ambassador of the republic of Argentina, and Mr George Stok-Capella, consul general of Argentina. Welcome.

Now it's time for oral questions. The leader of the official opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to raise with you a matter that I am sure you will recognize is of the utmost gravity. On September 4, 1995, 35 men, women and children, all members of the Stony Point band, formed a camp in Ipperwash Provincial Park. They were engaged in a peaceful, unarmed protest.

But on September 6 something went terribly wrong. An OPP officer shot and killed 38-year-old Dudley George. That officer was recently found guilty of criminal negligence causing death and it was found that he lied, both during the investigation leading up to the charge being laid and in court, together with two other officers. Of course that is not the end of the matter. There are a number of outstanding questions in this which lead to your government's involvement in this matter.

You maintain there is no such involvement, so I'm going to offer you now this opportunity, because I'm sure you're going to welcome this, to call a public inquiry into this affair.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the opportunity. As the member knows and as every expert opinion has been given, including the Liberals when they were in power, and the NDP, and everybody who's commented on this, it is not appropriate to call an inquiry while the matter is before the court. I understand from the papers there is to be an appeal. While I appreciate the opportunity, I think you would agree with me it is totally inappropriate (

a) to comment and (

b) to call an inquiry at this time.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I'm not asking for your comment, I'm asking for you to make a commitment to calling an inquiry. If you want to call that inquiry some time down the road after all legal proceedings have come to a conclusion, that's one thing, but I'm asking for your commitment, Premier, to call an inquiry.

I'm asking for that commitment because what we're talking about here, and I'm not sure you understand the seriousness of this, is a terrible tragedy. For the first time in over 100 years in the province of Ontario a native land claims protester was shot and killed. We know the police lied about their actions. We know there was some communication between representatives of your government and the police. We know that concern about this is growing daily, and more and more people across the province are beginning to ask two very important questions which ought to be answered: First, how did this happen? Second, what can we do to ensure it does not happen again?

Premier, once again, can you not today commit to calling a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: One of the problems you get into until you wait till legal proceedings are over is getting into language or things that aren't true. I think the member referred to a land claim. There has not been nor is there even to this day any land claim on the property in question, so I think it's important that in your rhetoric you actually get the facts correct. That's one of the reasons why you wait until all the cases before the courts are settled and then you take a look: Is there still information that would be helpful to prevent what we all acknowledge was a tragedy, a very serious situation, something we don't ever want to happen again?

The court case has been following it, has outlined some of the reasons why something happened that we all want avoided. But there are legal matters before there. There is a matter of justice, there is a matter of an appeal before the courts, and that's why every Premier, every Attorney General, every Solicitor General, every government has waited until those cases are completed. Then you assess: Is there still information we need to know and what are the parameters that are best to go about that? So we will do that in the logical way.

Mr McGuinty: I think you owe it to the family and friends of Dudley George, I think you owe it to all aboriginal groups throughout the province, I think you owe it to all Ontarians, I think you owe it to the members of your government and I think you owe it to yourself to begin to take steps today to remove the cloud that hangs over your head.

There is a very real question as to the involvement of your government in the affairs leading up to the death of Dudley George, an Ontario resident. You have done nothing to this point in time to show that you have any genuine interest in getting to the bottom of this, in removing that cloud that hangs over this very government and ensuring that Ontarians are answered with respect to two simple questions: First, how did this happen, how could this possibly happen in Ontario as it hasn't happened in over 100 years? Second, what can we do to ensure that it never, ever happens again? All I'm asking for is a commitment to hold an inquiry at some point in time.

Hon Mr Harris: There has not, certainly in my opinion or in the Attorney General's opinion or in the government's opinion, been anything come forward that offers any shred of any kind of a cloud other than ones you may want to allege or are trying to put there. I want to make that clear.

Second, we also owe it, as a good government does, and the Attorney General owes it to the justice system, to those who have been charged, to those who have been accused, due process under the law. As every government before us has had respect for that equal to the respect we have for the George family, that we have for the natives involved, we have to make sure that procedures in the future we hope would never have this happen again.

As a government, we have to be cognizant not only of doing all the right things, but doing the right things at the right time. So we take that extra onus on us, over and above what you seem to be prepared to accept. That is the price of government. We're prepared to accept that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to follow up on that. It has to do with the same issue. I think there is total, ample, obvious evidence that demands this public inquiry right now. You have said publicly, Premier, that the OPP were acting all on their own, that they had sole responsibility, that whatever happened at Ipperwash was their responsibility only. We have a very different view of that. We hold you and your government primarily responsible for the handling at Ipperwash. I'll give you some evidence.

You and your government decided that the province would take steps to remove the occupiers ASAP. That took away the OPP's options for negotiations. You decided to treat this not as a land claim but as a trespass issue. That took away the OPP's options. Your Conservative member, with your full knowledge and consent and support, was a constant visitor at the command post. Your Conservative member, I assume with the knowledge of what you planned, had in the paper "Queen's Park To Take Hard Line Against Park Occupiers" the day of the shooting. Will you now agree, because the evidence is clear for the need for a public inquiry, to hold a public --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Hon Mr Harris: I think I've pretty well completely answered the question, other than to repeat that for some reason or other you seem to want to get some rhetoric into it that's never been in it. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has alleged there was a land claim, then, before 1995, and post, right up to and including today. You have accused us of not treating this as a land claim. Well, guilty. Nobody, including the natives, has said it was a land claim. So let's just get that on the record, because you keep seeming to want to slip little things in there that even the natives aren't claiming.

Other than that, I've answered all your questions and at the appropriate time we will do the right thing.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You said shoot to kill.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Phillips: The first nations entered the park to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stand up and say it; I didn't hear it.

Mr Phillips: May I proceed, Speaker?

The Speaker: Order. Does someone over here want to stand on a point of order? I didn't hear the comment, if there was a comment.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr Speaker, I think the member for Cochrane North was completely out of order by indicating that the Premier gave the order to shoot to kill.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, I didn't hear the comment. If the comment was made or if you want to withdraw it, you have the opportunity at this point in time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Before we get into this, maybe you should see whether or not the member's going to withdraw.

Mr Len Wood: I had said nothing wrong, as far as I'm concerned. I asked the Premier a question. It was his response --

The Speaker: He's not withdrawing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, that's your decision. Supplementary, Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I want to follow up on the land claim. The first nations occupied that park because they believed there was a sacred burial ground in that park. As a matter of fact, this same

article the day of the shooting, only hours before the shooting, goes on to say, "A group of Stony Point natives believe that it holds a sacred burial ground." That is a land claim. That is why they went in there. The government months later laid charges. They were forced to drop those charges. Why? Because there was evidence that existed here with the government, within yards of where we're sitting here, that there was a sacred burial ground there. The government was forced to drop charges.

I say again, Premier, the evidence is crystal clear that it is you we want the inquiry about and that there's no need for you today to deny holding that inquiry. We will accept legal advice that says the inquiry cannot begin until there is an opportunity for fair trials to take place, but I repeat to you again, the evidence is there. Will you commit today to hold a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harris: The last time I recall somebody or an Attorney General rushing into a public inquiry was Ian Scott on Patti Starr. We all know what happened when it was prematurely set up. We all know what happened when the criteria were set up prematurely. We all know it had to be stopped; the money wasted and withdrawn. We all know what a fiasco it was.

We're determined not to make the same mistake. We're determined to wait until the criminal matters before the court are finished with. When that is taken care of, we will make the appropriate decision in the interests of all concerned and we will also respect the justice system and the correct time frame.

Mr Phillips: I'll be as direct as I can, Premier: We think you personally are responsible for what took place at Ipperwash. The only way we will get that clarified is through a public inquiry. I want to be very clear: No one is suggesting the public inquiry start until there are assurances it will not jeopardize court cases. We accept that. What we want from you today is a commitment to hold those public inquiries.

I'll go further on the evidence. You said in the Legislature that your office -- because we requested the files, you said: "We have no files. There are no files, there are no records, because we had no involvement." But we know differently. We know that your executive assistant was at meetings on September 5 and September 6. Those meetings said and instructed, "The province will take steps to remove the occupiers ASAP." What we want from you today and what the public have a right to demand is a commitment. We don't want this thing hidden, swept under the rug, stonewalled. We want a commitment today to a full public inquiry so the public can get to the root of this sorry, sorry Ontario tale.

Hon Mr Harris: With respect to any allegations, you are wrong, and at the appropriate time we'll respond.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Premier: The Premier continues to try to skate around this issue. In other situations like this where someone is killed, there may in fact be a criminal proceeding, but at the same time that criminal proceeding is occurring, the coroner's office will make a statement that there will be a coroner's inquiry. The coroner's office will make that statement that there will be a coroner's inquiry so that all those concerned with the death can be reassured that all the information will come out, not just the criminal issues, not just the narrow question of who is criminally responsible.

Premier, that's what people across Ontario are asking of you. Will you give a commitment at this time that there will be a public inquiry? The public inquiry can take place after the criminal matters are dealt with, but the commitment to a public inquiry must come now.

Hon Mr Harris: No, it mustn't.

Mr Hampton: The Premier does nothing but reinforce the growing impression that he has something to hide and that he is trying to hide something. This is not a difficult matter. It's not difficult. Coroners often give a commitment to hold a coroner's inquiry even as criminal issues are being dealt with in the court.

There is nothing stopping the Premier from standing in his place today and saying to people all across Ontario and indeed to first nations people all across Canada that a public inquiry will be held into this matter; that the involvement of the Conservative member, Mr Beaubien, in this will be dealt with; and that the police logs will be dealt with, the police logs which continue to dribble out day after day, which are not necessarily related to the criminal events but are certainly related to the death of Dudley George.

The Premier can give that commitment. We're asking the Premier: Give that commitment that you will hold a public inquiry, and give it now.

Hon Mr Harris: I think I've answered the question, and I'm not the coroner.

Mr Hampton: This is the information people want to know about. We know meetings were held with political staff, including a personal assistant to the Premier, just before the shooting. We know that Conservative MPP Mr Beaubien was at the OPP command post communicating with the Premier's office at the very time the OPP officers were deciding to force a confrontation with the native people. We know the government briefing notes state that the government wanted the occupiers out of the park ASAP.

We know that the OPP changed their long-standing strategy of avoiding confrontation with aboriginal people just after this government took office and just before this event happened. We know that the police logs state, Inspector John Carson stated, "The Premier and the Solicitor General want to deal with this," and to deal with it right away.

Police logbooks don't mention the Premier specifically for no reason. Premier, you're in this up to your neck. Call a public inquiry so the truth --

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: All the information that should be made public while the court case is on has been made public, I believe; if there is other information, certainly there are vehicles to do so. But I think when the case is there, all of the information that has been made public indicates that the government's involvement was solely to seek an injunction. Other than that, I haven't seen one shred of any evidence, innuendo, anything other than in your mind, that suggests anything else. That includes statements from the commissioner of the OPP.

That includes any of the information that's there; it includes any of the notes that are there; it includes any of the evidence that to date has come out at the trial.

So I can say to you that there is absolutely nothing there, that you are trying to make things up. You're not doing a very good job of it. But I want to assure the people, the public, the George family, the natives, of this: We will ensure that all of the information, all of the facts, all of the answers, anything they need access to or information, will be made available through the appropriate mechanism, whether it's a coroner's inquiry that you seem to be calling for, whether it's a public inquiry --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. I appreciate it. New question, third party. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: If the Premier will sit down, we can get on with this. I want to call the Premier on the comments he just made.

Premier, your lawyer, acting for you, wrote a letter to lawyers acting for the George family in this matter in the civil case trying to intimidate them, suggesting to them that if they released information, your government was going to come after them.

I put it to you, Premier, that you have done everything possible to stop information coming out, to stop briefing notes from coming out and to silence the lawyers for the George family. I put it to you that you have tried to avoid accountability on this. When are you going to call a public inquiry so that people across this province can have some confidence that all of the information is in fact coming out? When are you going to do that?

Hon Mr Harris: At the appropriate time.

Mr Hampton: I'll go back at it again, because the Premier continues to want to try to weave and dodge. Just like a coroner's inquiry, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from indicating here today in this Legislature --

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, the government members may think this is a laughing matter; people across this province don't.

Interjection: You are.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): -- then we'll see who's smiling and smirking.

The Speaker: Order. Minister of Culture, come to order. Member for Dovercourt, come to order. Member for Cochrane North, come to order. Thank you. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Just as the situation exists with a coroner's inquiry, just as a coroner can indicate on the public record while criminal proceedings are being held that a coroner's inquest is going to be held to inquire into all of the issues surrounding a death, not just the narrow, criminal issues, you can stand in this House today, Premier, and you can call for a public inquiry. You can commit that a public inquiry will be held so that people across this province will have confidence that all of the information will come out. As it is now, information comes out in dribs and drabs.

Police logs are coming out in dribs and drabs. What it's creating is a cloud, a great cloud of uncertainty and doubt, first of all now with respect to the OPP, the judge found that they were not honest; secondly with respect to the involvement of one of your backbenchers, and thirdly with respect to yourself. Clear the air, Premier. Call a public inquiry. Do the decent and right thing.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to say this: When the member makes allegations about members of my caucus laughing, they are. They are laughing at you.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: I think the Premier's arrogance says much more about him than anyone else here.

I want to say to the Premier again, it is not me who changed the OPP's approach to dealing with first nations conflicts. That OPP approach, which had stood for at least five years, and longer, was changed soon after you became the government. It was not me who wrote a police log which states, "Inspector John Carson stated Premier and Solicitor General want to deal with this."

Premier, doesn't it occur to you how unusual it is that you are referred to in a police log, in a police log which specifically relates to the death of an individual, for which an OPP officer has now been found criminally negligent? I have to tell you, Premier, the OPP do not put extraneous information in their police logs. They're careful about what they put in their police logs because they know they may be called to account for them. That in itself, the fact that your name and the Solicitor General is referred to in the police log dealing immediately with this issue, is cause enough for a public inquiry.

Hon Mr Harris: I have to say that the police officers are careful what they put in a log, far more careful than the allegations and the freedom with which you throw the truth around in this Legislature. Far more careful than that, I might add.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): That comes close to calling him a liar.

Hon Mr Harris: That is close, yes.

Mr Hampton: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: If I have said something untrue here, I want the Premier to indicate what it is. I have merely read from what is already on the public record.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): He said it was an untruth.

The Speaker: I don't think it's a point of privilege, with great respect, to the member of the third party.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Is he going to withdraw? He called my leader a liar.

The Speaker: With the greatest respect, to the member for Lake Nipigon, I didn't hear that. I heard everything he said. I didn't hear him call him that. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: The question today that I seem to be getting is one over timing. I suggest to all members of the Legislature, the George family, all those who have an interest in this matter, that the appropriate time is in fact when the court cases are completed. Then we can look at the most appropriate vehicle; then we can look at the parameters; then we can look at that information which still people are looking for.

The member has also referenced a lot about the chief coroner. He's right. The chief coroner could call an inquest into this. I don't know if you're calling for that now as well, but that is a possibility, I suppose. That's up to the chief coroner. Perhaps he will make that decision in the fullness of time, at the appropriate time, if he feels that's justified as well.

In the meantime, let me assure you that --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. New question, official opposition.

Mr Phillips: There is clear, detailed evidence of the need for a public inquiry. In our opinion, that's not in dispute.

You have avoided committing to a public inquiry. We can only surmise the reason is that you intend to not call one; that is the reason why you're delaying. Otherwise, today, Premier, you would get up in the House and say, "We are going to have a public inquiry as soon as we legally can begin it." The evidence is you did make the decision to get them out of the park ASAP. That's clear evidence. You did decide to ignore their claims there was a burial ground in there. That's clear evidence. You did decide that you have no records in your office. That's clear evidence.

Will you today commit to that public inquiry? Otherwise, there will be the suspicion very much in the public that you have no intention of ever calling a public inquiry.

Hon Mr Harris: With the greatest respect, unless somebody wishes to misrepresent my position to the public, they'll have great confidence that we will do the right thing at the right time.

Mr Phillips: It is you, Premier, who made the decision to get them out of the park as soon as possible. It is you, Premier, who said, "I have no records because we had no involvement." It's you, Premier, who decided to ignore the burial ground claims, which is a land claim. So when you say people will have confidence that you will make the right decision, I repeat to you: Will you today commit to holding a public inquiry so we can get at the heart of your involvement and your government's involvement in this affair?

Hon Mr Harris: I find it passing strange that the member is prepared to go on the public record, particularly here in the Legislature, with all the things that he knows, and then he says we need an inquiry to find out if that's in fact what he knows. I want to say that as a preface to the question that's there.

Second, I think, and I repeat, that unless some member of this Legislature or somebody else wishes to go out and misrepresent our position to the public, the public will have great confidence that (

a) we will respect the law, we will respect the timing and the rule of the law with not wanting to interfere with any court cases. We respect the rights of any individuals who may have been charged in this. At the same time, in doing that, we will do exactly the right thing to satisfy that all information is made public in this. We have absolutely nothing to hide. There is absolutely nothing other than some kind of incongruous web of facts that you wish to throw together in some sort of way in your own twisted minds that you think mean something other than the truth. There is absolutely nothing --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, Premier, please. New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: It's clear that the Premier either doesn't understand the gravity of this or he wants to stay away from the gravity of this.

Premier, here's the problem: You yourself and the Solicitor General are mentioned in the very police logs that relate to the incidents surrounding the death of Dudley George. You are referred to as wanting this issue dealt with right away.

You may think it's okay for you to stand here and say, "Well, I, Mike Harris, believe everything is fine," but there is a way to get to the bottom of this. You see, a public inquiry has the right to subpoena people. A public inquiry has the right to take information under oath. A public inquiry has the capacity to get all the facts in and to get them in under oath. A public inquiry has the capacity to clear your name and to ask, "What's your name doing in the police log?"

Premier, I think you owe it to the people to get to the bottom of this, and the way you do that is to --

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

Hon Mr Harris: I do intend to get to the bottom of this and I also owe it to the people to get to the bottom of this, and then the government has an added responsibility to get to the bottom of this at the right time. We accept that responsibility, one that opposition members don't have. They don't have that unless they choose to accept being responsible, and neither one of the opposition parties appears to want to do that, on a whole series of matters, whether it's budgets or other areas of responsibility of governing.

As long as you don't accept it, that's fine, but we do accept that and we will do the right thing, and we'll also do it at the right time.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Premier that the right time, as in a coroner's inquiry, is to give that commitment to people now. All the questions are out there now. Every day questions grow. You read an editorial in the Toronto Star: "Harris ducked calling an inquiry for a year by saying it would interfere with Deane's trial. His current excuses -- a possible appeal of the verdict and a civil suit -- are even thinner." Or I could read the London Free Press, which quotes the fact that you are in fact referred to in the police logs, the very police logs that deal with the incident directly related to the death.

Premier, the questions are out there now and the questions are growing every day, so why not commit to holding that public inquiry? Give that commitment today and that public inquiry can begin down the road, but the commitment to have the questions answered has to happen today. Will you give that commitment?

Hon Mr Harris: I give the commitment that in the right time, in the right way, the questions will be answered.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Attorney General. The people of this province remember all too well the frustration they felt when in 1990 some 50,000 cases were dismissed before coming to trial as a result of the Askov decision. On November 5 last year you announced that your ministry was launching a major attack on the backlog in the criminal justice system and that one of those locations would be the provincial court in Newmarket. Could you please inform the Legislature of the results of that blitz on the backlog?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for York-Mackenzie for the question. As I indicated last week, reducing court backlogs is the number one priority of the Ministry of the Attorney General. We have had, as you alluded to, a long-standing problem in this area, such that 50,000 cases were thrown out at one point in time.

We have set up a blitz, as you're aware, and we're now seeing some very positive results from this blitz of courts. I reported on the progress in Scarborough last week. In Newmarket we've opened two blitz courts. We've reduced the time it takes for an accused to have a case set for trial from 10 to three months and we've reduced the number of charges in progress before the courts by 10.6% since the beginning of the blitz in November 1996. These are very concrete results that prove that our blitz is working to prevent cases being thrown out because they take too long to come to trial.

Mr Klees: This government has made a very clear commitment to community safety. In fact, community safety was a cornerstone of the Common Sense Revolution and reform of the justice system was very much a part of that commitment. The people of this province want to ensure that our justice system would back up the good work the police are doing in our communities.

My constituents want to know that that commitment to community safety is being followed through by the government. Could you please tell me what specific initiatives and what resources you are bringing to ensure that our communities are safe?

Hon Mr Harnick: Again I thank the member for York-Mackenzie for the question. We've launched a major blitz on the backlog in the six most heavily burdened courts in the province. We've assigned 40 officials to the project, including 25 crown attorneys and 15 law clerks. We've committed $1 million to $2 million to this project. Since the beginning of January, the case management team has worked very closely with police on an integrated review of files to help speed up backlogged cases.

The blitz courts are a first step in addressing the systemic problems of long-standing court backlogs. We're working closely and cooperatively with the judiciary and the police to find viable long-term solutions to prevent a buildup of cases in the future. By clearing the backlog, we will make sure that our communities stay safe and that victims' rights are respected and strengthened. We're committed to this and we are seeing real, positive results so far in our blitz courts.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. There are a large number of adult education day school students who are in the galleries today and there were at least a couple of hundred more outside who were hoping to be able to get in. They are here today to ask you to protect their opportunity to get the education they need. They are here to tell you how important it is to them to get their secondary school diplomas and to earn them by learning, not by spending money to write a test.

These people are worried about what will happen to their chance for an education when you take over control of their educational future. Will you today guarantee full funding for adult day school education for the future?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order in the galleries. You can't do that. I just caution the galleries that there are no demonstrations. That's definitely considered a demonstration.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I am a little surprised that the member opposite would recycle a discussion that I believe we had fully a year ago. I was surprised at the time a year ago that the member opposite could not understand the distinction between a system designed to deliver adolescent education services and one designed for adult programs. I'm particularly surprised given that there has been a year from the time of that discussion and we now know that most school boards that offered full adult day school in Ontario have restructured their service to offer continuing education day school with focuses on literacy, numeracy and technology.

In addition we now know, a year later, that there is an increasing use of our independent learning centres, particularly by people in remote areas. We know that the colleges right across Ontario continue to offer programs for adults in Ontario basic skills programs. So Ontario continues to offer an abundance of training and education programs designed for and applied for adults in Ontario, and we continue to fund these way above the numbers that most provinces do.

Mrs McLeod: I ask the minister to listen to the concerns of the people who are here in the galleries today. These are not adolescents; these are adults. They know what they need. They know what this minister is offering is not what they need. They deserve an education. They need an education. They want to get a secondary school diploma.

The minister talks about last year. It was indeed a year ago when this minister started his search for the $1 billion that he promised his Premier he could deliver, and the places he started to find his $1 billion were in junior kindergarten at one end and adult education at the other end. This minister cut adult day school education funding by 50% and he has devastated adult day school education programs in all the communities outside Toronto that were dependent on his grants. Enrolment declined an average of 50%, and in some places the enrolment is down by as much as 80%.

This is what is going to happen in Toronto too if you do not change your funding policies. Your idea of equality is going to mean that many more adults will not get their education. I ask you: Will you in this next budget undo the damage you have already done? Will you restore full funding?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What's the Mulroney staffer telling you to say?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): -- another $2 billion cut.

The Speaker: Thank you. Member for St Catharines. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: Don't blame the feds.

The Speaker: Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't want a conversation taking place when I've sat down either. Thanks.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the member opposite that there is no one in this chamber who values adult education more than I. I don't think there's anyone in this chamber who has been involved in adult literacy and other programs. I also want to assure the member opposite that I have talked with a number of people involved in adult education right across this province, people who deliver adult education and people who have received that benefit, and I have been thanked in community after community for putting together the GED program in Ontario.

Your government could have done it. You could have helped any number of adult learners in Ontario move through the secondary school program into post-secondary programs, into post-secondary training programs, into jobs faster, which is what they needed.

I believe our development of the GED program in Ontario and our track record for designing programs specifically for the needs of adults are without parallel, and we will move forward in providing these programs and in making sure that we have the best literacy programs for adults in North America.

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. Earlier this week you announced the first candidates for your government's privatization: the Province of Ontario Savings Office, the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, the Ortech research facilities and three tree nurseries. At the same time, you've appointed a privatization czar, Mr Paul Currie, from the Bay Street firm of Coopers and Lybrand, and you're going to pay him over $200,000 a year.

Premier, many people suspect that there is a longer list of agencies, boards, commissions and corporations to be privatized, but you haven't shared that with the public. Can you tell me who outside the Ontario government has had an opportunity to see the full, long list of what your government plans to privatize? Can you tell us who may have seen a longer list?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know that there is a longer list, but let me be very clear and upfront and public that there are many, many, many things that government does that we have suggested should be put to a test. These are taxpayers' dollars providing a service to the public. Is there a way or can somebody do it better and more efficiently? If you have a suggestion for any of the thousands of things we do, we'll put it to the test.

Mr Hampton: The Premier avoided answering my question. I asked you if there were a longer list and if anyone outside the government has seen this longer list.

I want to read to you a memo. It says: "I had lunch with Hugh Bolton on Monday, March 17, and learned on a confidential basis that Paul Currie," from the Toronto office of Coopers and Lybrand, "is leaving the firm to head the agency about to be established by the Ontario government to direct the privatization of a very long list of government departments, corporations and agencies." "A very long list" is referred to, Premier. The memo goes on to say that this gentleman Bolton, who works at Coopers and Lybrand, has seen the long list.

My question to you again, Premier, is this: Have you personally, or has any member of the Mike Harris cabinet, met with Hugh Bolton or anyone else at Coopers and Lybrand to discuss how long the list is and to discuss --

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

Hon Mr Harris: I haven't directly, specifically, with a list or not. I mean, I have met with all kinds of people and publicly acknowledged -- I don't know why anything would be private -- that we believe we should put to the test all kinds of things. In the Common Sense Revolution, we talked about LCBO, TVOntario. We talked about Hydro, which obviously is one of those that are going to be put to the test, various components of Hydro that are there, and so there are areas that are there.

I know that you actually quietly, without any process really, went ahead and outsourced a number of things; even the NDP did that. But I say this to you: Unless you are suggesting to us we shouldn't see if we can get better service, better quality, better price for the taxpayers, I would assume that you are encouraging us to put everything government does to this kind of test where it makes sense to do so. If you have a list you'd like to submit, I'll give it to the minister.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, as you're aware, this government is delivering on its pledge to create a positive environment for the private sector to grow and create jobs. Employment remains an important issue for my constituents in Oshawa, as it does throughout the province.

I understand that the Ministry of Education and Training is delivering a new program, called the career and employment preparation program, to Durham region, which will help participants from Oshawa and Durham overcome employment barriers. Could you give us the details on how this and other employment initiatives will help my constituents in the job market?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Oshawa for the question. In fact, unemployment, particularly unemployment among our youth, is a very high priority for this government. On April 1, we launched the career and employment preparation program, which will serve more than 90,000 people in Ontario. Most of those people are young people who desperately need this kind of service.

Unlike previous governments, our career and employment preparation program will operate in conjunction with employers in the private sector, who know how to develop and train young people for real long-term jobs. We're very proud of this program. We're also in the process of reforming our secondary school system and our apprenticeship programs to improve the opportunities for young people in Ontario. I was also proud to announce just a matter of a few weeks ago that we're investing $37.5 million in the Ontario summer jobs strategy, which will assist over 34,000 young people in the province.

Mr Ouellette: This government's summer job program for this year will create jobs for youth in my constituency of Oshawa as well as the entire province. These jobs will provide youth with valuable work experience. I understand this year's summer job program will assist about 34,000 youth in getting summer jobs. However, the recent NDP --

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): "Go get your own job." That's the kind of job program you have.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Windsor-Sandwich, I'm warning you to come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, I'll warn you to come to order. I've kind of run out of patience today. I'm warning you to come to order.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It has been a difficult day.

The Speaker: It's been a difficult day, you're right. Come to order. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, come to order too.

Supplementary.

Mr Ouellette: As I was saying, a recent NDP release indicates that their program provided for 54,216 youth jobs, and my constituents are expressing concerns. Minister, could you clarify the record for us on this issue?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can understand some of the confusion on the part of your constituents. As you know, the leader of the third party seems to have a passion for numbers and I have in the past suggested that he might want to check those with his research staff from time to time. In this case again, he's got his numbers wrong.

The previous NDP government never created 54,216 summer jobs, as has been put out recently in a communiqué. In fact, I have with me today the communiqué from March 25, 1994, which states that the NDP created Jobs Ontario, which put together 24,000 jobs. Their program, which cost more money, assisted 10,000 less students in the province of Ontario. I'm glad the member for Oshawa gave us the opportunity to set the record straight today.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You know what? That was out of order and I ask the member for Lake Nipigon to withdraw.

Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw, sir.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Premier. I want to ask you about the comments that your Minister of Finance made to the Toronto Star yesterday to the effect that your government will force municipalities to shield low-income earners and seniors and disabled persons from sharp tax increases. He said, as a matter of fact, "We are sending them," meaning the municipalities, "a direct policy message that you have to help low-income seniors and disabled persons."

Premier, are you finally admitting that property taxes are going to soar in this province as a result of your new property tax assessment system and as a result of your downloading scheme which is going to increase the local property taxation by about $1 billion in this province? We've heard from municipalities like Kingston that it's going to increase $28 million; Sudbury, by over $100 million; Niagara, by $73 million. Are you finally admitting that, as a result of your downloading, property taxes in this province are going to increase?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, we're not.

Mr Gerretsen: These figures put together by over 100 municipalities already throughout this province, put together by independent CAOs, treasurers of those municipalities, by mayors of all political parties, clearly indicate that the average property taxes will rise by about 10% in this province, but in some cases they may be as much as 40% or 50%. If you're saying that's not the case, why don't you release the studies or authorize your Minister of Finance to release the studies you're relying on that in effect there is no downloading on to the property tax system?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the member will want to know that the amendment that the minister was putting forward had to do only with Bill 106 that dealt with assessment. What we have clearly acknowledged with Bill 106 reassessing is that while there will not be as a result of that legislation one cent of total tax increase, there are inequities in the tax system. What the minister has said is that while the residents of Scarborough, for example, have been overpaying on their assessment, there are some people in Toronto, for example, who have been underpaying. In spite of that, the opposition members from Scarborough continue to oppose reforming the assessment system.

None the less, I want to be very clear about this: What the minister has suggested is that if municipalities have unfairly underassessed and undertaxed seniors for a period of time, they should take that into account --

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

Hon Mr Harris: -- when they go to a fair system: not one cent total increase, but there were inequities within the system, which I guess explains why neither one --

The Speaker: New question, third party.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. I understand you confirmed to the media today that you intend to open a public hospital under the Public Hospitals Act at the Amalguin community health centre in Burk's Falls, and what's more, you announced that you were going to be allocating an additional $450,000 to operate those six beds, even though your government has cut hundreds of thousands of dollars from hospitals all over the province: $400,000 from the hospital in Petrolia, $475,000 from Penetanguishene, $430,000 from Campbellford Memorial.

Minister, for weeks, for months, you've been hiding behind the hospital restructuring committee, saying you're not responsible for the closure of hospitals all over this province, and yet today we see you confirming that you're going to open a hospital and that you're doing that without any consultation with the restructuring commission, without any advice from them. Don't you think this is a double standard?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): This particular institution has always been a hospital. The designation as a hospital never changed from the previous government. What the previous government did, without any consultation it closed the 15-bed hospital that used to be in Burk's Falls. They left nothing behind --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): It wasn't without consultation. There was a DHC report. Why the heck won't you guys say things accurately?

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau. Thank you.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Just trying to help.

The Speaker: I know you are, and I'll be very helpful for you in a moment. If you could come to order, I'd appreciate it. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: It was a 15-bed hospital serving the people of Burk's Falls. The NDP closed that and then they left no beds behind. After Mr Eves and I, in opposition, constantly hounded you about the fact that that community needed some beds, at least some observation beds and some overnight beds -- the doctors had consistently told you that -- you then decided to make it a community health centre.

It still was a mess when we came to office, so in December 1995 we set up the Amalguin task force that was made up of health care experts, not politicians, and they recommended six beds, and they did that some time ago. Because we have said health care restructuring is not about saving money overall, it's about putting every penny and more back in, it's time to open six beds in Burk's Falls which never should have been closed in the first place.

Mrs Boyd: There are several problems with the explanation you give. As you know, this was closed in 1992 as a result of a report by the district health council. The politicians who make up the reeves, not to mention the Deputy Premier of this province, have indeed exerted pressure on you.

Minister, do you not understand that you have set up a halt to the closure of rural hospitals on the grounds that you need a rural hospital policy? You have done that at the behest of other Tory members. We haven't seen that rural hospital policy, we haven't seen any report in that area from the restructuring commission to talk about what the need is, we haven't seen any of the rigour of the kinds of criteria that have been brought to bear in every other community.

We have seen $800 million come out of hospitals all over the province, and yet you think there isn't some problem with your deciding, at the pressure of your Deputy Premier, to put this hospital back into his riding? You can't get away with that. People understand there is a double standard going on here, and especially your Tory backbenchers who are facing cuts in their hospitals understand --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member should simply get up and admit that they shouldn't have closed the 15 beds in the first place. But she doesn't want to do that. She wants to play politics and force this into the political realm. The task force, which was at arm's length from all of us, made up of the experts, in consultation with the DHC, is recommending six beds. These aren't full acute care beds, they're transitional and respite beds.

Ms Lankin: Come on. During the filibuster Ernie Eves stormed into your office --

Mrs Boyd: We have all heard from the bureaucracy.

Hon Mr Wilson: We've been opening respite beds across the province, and Burk's Falls meets the --

The Speaker: Excuse me, Minister. I don't want to warn the members for London Centre and Beaches-Woodbine again. Come to order, please. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: This is the sort of political innuendo that frankly makes people sick in this province.

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is directed to the minister responsible for seniors. Yesterday's Toronto Star quotes Dr David Naylor, the chief executive officer of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, saying that there is a wide disparity in the levels of home care services for patients in communities across Ontario. I know in my own community of Mississauga there are fewer home care resources than in many other communities. What I would like to know is, is this a concern for the government? It certainly is a very big concern for me as the representative of 98,000 people.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank the member for her question. It's on a very important issue involving seniors and home care access in this province. Dr Naylor was very clear and accurate in his description and accurately reflected the situation we found home care in when we became the government.

We have acted strategically and quickly to resolve this issue and have developed equity funding and, as part of our $170-million reinvestment into long-term care, we've been able to flow that money and expand the service. I think members of the House would be interested in knowing that where the Liberals spent $400 million on home care, this government is now spending over $882 million, including $1.1 billion in services.

Mrs Marland: My supplementary is on the same subject. Minister, a month ago you and I met with the new volunteer board of the Peel Community Care Access Centre to discuss their business plan and to learn how they would serve the people of my region. Could you tell the House how the new community care access centres will improve the coordination and consistency of care for seniors and people with disabilities across Ontario?

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Oh, come on, Margaret. You can be more creative than that. Blah, blah, blah.

Mrs Marland: I know the member for Nickel Belt is interested in this question also.

Hon Mr Jackson: As I indicated, our government moved strategically and quickly. It was one of the first pieces of health care legislation brought forward by this government to implement accountable, locally governed community care access centres. There are 43 of them. I was in Sudbury on Friday to examine eight of the business plans for all of northern Ontario, and I am pleased to report the progress and the number of seniors and disabled persons who are actually accountable in making these decisions.

I am pleased to report that this is the first government in Ontario's history to bring in a common assessment tool so that seniors in any part of this province will receive equal treatment, equal funding. They deserve to be able to have services that are coordinated in the right place at the right time when they need them. That is what this government is pleased to implement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Motions.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You need unanimous consent for this.

Hon David Johnson: I will seek unanimous consent, although this was put on the order paper.

The Speaker: Well, yes. I had this discussion. This is not a routine motion, so we need unanimous consent.

Hon David Johnson: Is there consent that I be allowed to present this motion?

The Speaker: So that we know what you're talking about, the government House leader is seeking unanimous consent to put this motion on the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

That an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Thomas Wright, current interim Information and Privacy Commissioner, to act as interim Information and Privacy Commissioner until May 31, 1997,

"And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker."

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Debate.

The Speaker: Oh, yes, there's always debate. Okay, debate then. Who's up to debate? The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): While the discussion is going on, I will have a very brief comment. I don't want to panic the Government House Leader right now.

I simply want to say that the commissioner has done an outstanding job in many cases he has dealt with. Particularly, I want to mention Bill 26. The present commissioner has done an outstanding job on that. His opinion was very helpful to members of the Legislature as we endeavoured to deal with Bill 26 and the ramifications of some of the provisions, particularly the medical provisions that relate to Bill 26.

We, of course, would be happy to see Commissioner Wright carry on because of the manner in which he has dealt with his responsibilities as privacy commissioner. As all members know, this is an extremely important position in this province, a person who must be seen to be and actually be above any partisan considerations. Mr Wright has certainly lived up to that obligation. Sometimes we in the opposition have been pleased with his rulings and sometimes we have not been as pleased with his rulings. That usually means he is doing a good job.

It's similar to the job of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, where from time to time the opposition may not be in agreement with the ruling made by a Speaker, and at other times the opposition may be fully in agreement with the ruling of the Speaker. The privacy commissioner is a person who because of this important office should be permitted to carry on. We understand the government must legally have the commissioner carry on, and indeed it is our intention to see this happen. We will be in favour of this motion.

The Speaker: Questions or comments? None? Further debate.

Ms Lankin: I want to assure the government House leader that I will not prolong this. I appreciate the member for St Catharines and the contribution he made, the comments he made. It actually also allowed for discussion to take place about the rest of the business for the day, so that was helpful.

At this point in time I will say that we will be supporting this, although we think there are some significant problems in continued extensions of appointments. It is another case of mismanagement on the part of the government with respect to these appointments, but we will be supporting the motion that has been put forward today.

The Speaker: Further debate? No. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motions. A government motion?

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I'll give it a shot anyway. I seek unanimous consent to move a motion respecting the interim supply motion.

The Speaker: Agreed? No, I heard a no.

PETITIONS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would like to read the following petition:

"To the government of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore,

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

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

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to allow a landlord to charge a tenant who moves into an apartment whatever the landlord can get away with; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws which provide true protection for tenants in place."

Most of these people come from the area of 565 Sherbourne, and I affix my name to the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition to present on behalf of my colleague the honourable Noble Villeneuve, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. As per the standing orders, I will summarize its contents. It is with respect to the restructuring of the provincial-municipal relationship and on the critical areas of social services, welfare, long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill, and reads as follows in the final part:

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

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition in regard to the current child care crisis in Ontario and it reads as follows:

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care workers of our Parkdale and High Park communities urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across our province, and restore funding to their previous levels."

I'm signing my signature to this document.

YOUTH SERVICES

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm pleased to present a petition regarding the termination of government funding to the Brock youth resource centre. There are approximately 60 pages of signatures, and this petition calls on the government to provide the youth of Barrie with the same community youth support services that are being provided to the youth of Hamilton. I affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government is proposing to completely change the structure of relations between the province and municipalities without any public consultation with Ontarians; and

"Whereas the restructuring proposes to download on to municipalities the cost of public transportation and essential social services like welfare and long-term care for seniors and people with chronic illness; and

"Whereas the restructuring takes away the power to levy tax on school boards and subsequently any real power over their schools and curricula; and

"Whereas the actions of the government are not respecting the promise to keep funding at an actual level and don't recognize that different communities don't have the same resources to absorb these new burdens and that it is creating some inequity in access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government does not show any interest in consultation of the population and it does not take into account the reaction of the population, it represents a threat to democracy; and

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, are hereby expressing non-confidence against the government of the province of Ontario because we are concerned with the inequities of the life of the province and the wellbeing of the children, neighbours and communities."

I have affixed my signature, and there are 42 signatures.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, and petitions signed by thousands of auto workers from the Windsor and Oshawa area. The petitions read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition pertaining to Bill 84, the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, signed by approximately 113 of my constituents from Jacksons Point, Pefferlaw, Cannington, Sunderland, Keswick, Sutton, Baldwin and East Gwillimbury. It appears to be in the standard form, and I am submitting it on their behalf today.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Teamsters Local 879 in my home town of Hamilton, Local 105 of IBEW from across the province, as well as other workers in St Catharines, Guelph and Windsor. The petitions read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I proudly add my name to theirs.

REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition "Re Proposed Social Work Act in Ontario," signed by about 25 people, two of whom are constituents.

"We, the undersigned, are concerned about the exclusionary intentions of the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers to regulate the delivery of social work in Ontario. It is imperative that graduates of social service worker programs are included in the proposed Social Work Act. More than 50% of practising social workers in Ontario are graduates of community college SSW programs. Any legislation must include the regulation of social service workers and their clients in order to realistically reflect the services provided in our communities."

I'm submitting it on their behalf.

TUITION FEES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition sent to me by Claudio Monteleone, a student at Lakehead University, who is very concerned about the increased tuition fees and has started a petition campaign, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-secondary educational costs have been increasing due to economic and technological changes;

"Whereas student tuition fees have increased greatly over the past few years;

"Whereas the cost of living for students continues to increase;

"Whereas students are unable to continue their education due to high costs;

"Whereas future economic growth depends on access to post-secondary education;

"Whereas the panel on the Future Directions for Postsecondary Education recognized the inadequacy in financial resources available to post-secondary education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to renew its financial commitment for post-secondary education and to recognize that a multi-year commitment to the restoration of support must be guaranteed."

I'm pleased to sign my name along with this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me from the Service Employees International Union, Locals 183 and 663 in Belleville, as well as petitions sent to me by Margaret Nelson, who is a steward with OPSEU Local 479 in Ottawa. These petitions are signed by workers in the Kingston area as well.

"To