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

September 22, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

L233 - Mon 22 Sep 1997 / Lun 22 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

EDUCATION REFORM

COURTICE COMMUNITY COMPLEX

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

ROBERT "JACK" HARRIS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1997

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

DEFERRED VOTES

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

TIME ALLOCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOME CARE

EDUCATION FINANCING

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

HOSPITAL BEDS

SELF-MANAGEMENT

HOME CARE

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION FINANCING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

ABORTION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

TVONTARIO

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CREMATORIUM IN VAUGHAN

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO NUCLEAR AFFAIRS

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Yesterday in my home town of Merlin, I had the opportunity to join in the annual drumhead service, which is held across the country to celebrate the beginning of Legion Week, which runs through to September 27.

Legions are a focal point in our communities across this country for the spirit of fellowship and goodwill which personifies their membership. As Canadians, it is important for us to give solemn remembrance to past Canadians who fought and died to preserve the freedom of this country. Legion activities help us to remember so that the sacrifices of so many will not be in vain.

The valuable work done by the Legion in local communities, in every hamlet, town and city in Canada, makes it the largest service club in the country, operating in almost 2,000 communities and donating an estimated $30 million to benefit individual communities. Legion members also contribute thousands of hours of volunteer service. Legion members contribute to Scouts Canada, student bursaries and awards, visitations to hospitalized veterans, and community and youth projects too numerous to mention.

The Royal Canadian Legion enjoys an outstanding record of community service, legislative progressiveness and national consciousness-raising. I am sure the entire Legislature will join me in recognizing Legion Week and in offering thanks to Legion members for their sense of commitment and dedication.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): After my nomination in April of this year, I organized a meeting of individuals who were having problems with the family support plan. There were about 30 families in attendance. All of them had accounts that were in arrears.

I've checked on those cases and I can report that almost all of those accounts are still in arrears, their regular payments are late, and these families are experiencing a great deal of financial difficulty. These families depend on this money. The money is owed to them. It helps them provide housing for their children and food and clothing.

They tell us that it's next to impossible for them to speak to anyone at the central office. When they correspond in writing, there's never any response from anyone at the plan office. Up until August 15 of this year, we had a direct line that case workers could call, but since August 18 there has been no response to any of those calls. The line goes directly to voice mail, so there isn't anyone that can be contacted at that office.

The family support plan has been renamed the Family Responsibility Office. The family support plan was put in place to support families in their efforts to receive court-ordered payments, but it appears, with this new name, that families are now being told that no one is responsible.

NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I want to take this opportunity to thank the Premier, Ministers Tsubouchi and Villeneuve and my Niagara caucus colleagues for visiting my riding last Friday, September 19. They took

part in the celebrity kickoff breakfast for the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival at Market Square in downtown St Catharines. After the breakfast, they visited Chateau des Charmes Wines in Niagara-on-the-Lake, where they met with Dr Paul M. Bosc, president of Chateau des Charmes, and Ontario Wine Council members.

There, the Premier helped plant a transgenic grapevine, a stress-resistant vinifera vine that will revolutionize the grape and wine industry, as it can withstand up to minus 25 degrees Celsius. This scientific breakthrough is very important to all the wine-producing regions of Ontario because the industry at present accounts for more than $280 million annually in sales, and directly employs about 1,400 people. Just imagine the positive impact this stress-resistant grapevine can have on those wine sales and job creation prospects.

I want to thank everyone involved in the Grape and Wine Festival kickoff and encourage all Ontarians to visit the Niagara region over the next couple of weeks. Again, on behalf of my constituents, my thanks go to the Premier and to Ministers Tsubouchi and Villeneuve for their recognition and support.

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It's a sham. I rise today to again appeal to Mike Harris to rein in Dave Cooke and his commissars.

Last summer, Dave Cooke and his accomplices arrogantly dismissed the democratically elected chair of the Sudbury public education commission. The chair, Louis Bourcier, who is also the chair of the Espanola public board, was summarily dismissed, a blatant disregard of local democracy.

Now I have a letter from the North Shore Board of Education, signed by Robert Whitehead, the chair. He says in part:

"I do...feel it necessary to share my concerns with you. I must also point out that I am not the only one with these concerns. Trustees from many small boards have shared this perception with me. The role of the individual trustee in small communities, especially in northern Ontario, has become irrelevant, if not redundant.

"This may be the government's objective," Mr Whitehead says.

"...It would appear that unless the Education Improvement Commission support majority recommendations of local education improvement committees, that the process becomes a sham, especially when applied to restructuring.

"If the process is a sham," he says, "then those communities outside these larger dominant cities should be informed, especially in northern Ontario, where because of distances, meetings and travel are so costly."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): As a former educator, I want to make some comments on matters as they relate to education. I have to tell you, ever since M. Snobelen has perpetrated a crisis in the education system, people like me have been very worried, educators across the province have been very worried, and teachers particularly, and parents, in the area of Peel have been very worried about what M. Snobelen, the Minister of Education and Training, is doing to teachers, children and the parents worried about the educational system.

We know that these folks are Tory mercenaries dedicated to cutting taxes for their rich friends. They're mercenaries. This is all about giving money away to those who don't need it, and as a result of that, they have to take money from the educational system. This is what this agenda on education is all about.

Does anybody think they have spent adequate time reflecting on educational changes that are going to improve the educational system? Absolutely not. These changes all have to do with taking money out of our school systems and that's what this is all about.

He uses reform as an excuse to bleed money from our Ontario system. These are agents of deception, and the public watching should know this. I urge the teachers who are here and watching to fight this government on the changes that are about to be announced.

COURTICE COMMUNITY COMPLEX

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a real pleasure to see the new pages and their fresh faces here today.

I have some good news to share from my riding of Durham East, which I am very pleased to share with the members of the House today.

An official ceremony was held September 13, 1997, to mark the opening of the new Courtice Community Complex. The $700,000 project was completed under the Canadian-Ontario infrastructure works program, with each partner -- federal, provincial and municipal -- contributing one third to the total cost. The funds were spent on the provision of a leisure pool, fitness centre, community hall and a brand-new library.

This project is an excellent investment in people, in community and in our future. The Canadian-Ontario infrastructure program is not about bricks and mortar; it's all about improving people's lives.

I wish to thank all the community for their contribution and congratulate Minister Marilyn Mushinski, who opened the official ceremonies; Stephanie Creighton, chair of the library board; Mayor Diane Hamre; Ian Smith, campaign chair of the Courtice Community Complex; Brad Greentree and all the hard-working volunteers; and, more important, the chief librarian of the area, Cynthia Mearns, for her hard work and commitment to bring services to the people in my riding of Durham East.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): As the House is aware, we have been chasing the Minister of Health and asking him repeatedly to release funding to Windsor-area hospitals. The response to that has been a cut, over two years, of $28 million, this at the same time as our hospitals are forced to spend over $6 million each on restructuring costs over the last two years, none of which has been rebated by the ministry.

What we found out in Windsor is that restructuring is a very costly process. I suggest to all members of this House that you will be finding out this same thing. As they are being forced to close and to merge, it is indeed an expensive process.

Because our hospitals have had to spend over $6 million each without being reimbursed by the ministry, as they should be, and as in only this last budget has money for restructuring costs been added, we unfortunately have lost hospital services before our community was prepared to accept those services in other ways.

Today's newspaper: "Mom Dies After Missed ER Diagnosis." This in a Windsor hospital leads many Windsorites to ask questions: Is this because the Minister of Health has once again failed the Windsor community, when indeed he should have come forward with funding that we identified was requested, namely, $110 million which has yet to arrive at Windsor's doorstep?

Again I ask the Minister of Health to come forward immediately.

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today marks the official kickoff of the North Bay Days of Action, and this next week promises to see many activities, many people working hard together to bring home a political point to the Premier of this province.

As I reported last week, Phil White, the owner of a North Bay deli, is honouring the protest with a special sandwich named for North Bay's MPP, Mike Harris, called the Sink Harris Sub. Another speciality on his menu is the Great Golden Banana, a frozen banana dipped in chocolate and nuts, "much like our MPP," says White.

As the activities begin, there are ordinary people bringing forth their points of view of why they are participating. For example, Trevor Knight from North Bay, a support worker at a group home for five developmentally handicapped people which was closed as a result of the Harris government cuts, says: "The Bay Days provide everyday people with an opportunity to stand up and have a voice. I will be joining thousands of people to show the Premier that by not caring or listening, his political days are numbered and we're taking back our Ontario."

Diane Gallupe from Callander says: "I'm participating in the Days of Action because I'm tired of seeing the social network that my parents and grandparents worked very hard for slip away."

People are joining together. The Days of Action are launched today. There will be activities all through this week. We invite people from across Ontario to join with us in making the political statement to Harris: "This is our Ontario. We're going to take it back."

ROBERT "JACK" HARRIS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today in this Legislature to honour the memory of a former member of this Legislature who represented Beaches-Woodbine.

Major Robert John Harris was born September 16, 1917, in Toronto. He passed away on June 12 of this year in Toronto East General Hospital. The hospital was founded by his father, Joseph Henry Harris, in 1929.

Jack Harris was an MPP in the Beaches from 1962 to 1967. In that time he served as chief government whip. He made several noteworthy contributions to this country and province and to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

He was a veteran of the Second World War. He entered the war as a lieutenant captain of the 48th Highlanders regiment, and after five years of wartime service in Italy, France, Holland and Germany, Mr Harris returned home wearing the rank of major.

He was elected to the Legislature in a by-election in 1961. After only one year in office, he returned to the polls in 1963 for a general election which he also claimed. He also served as vice-chair of the Ontario Liquor Control Board.

His service to the community was commendable. He was a director on the board of governors of Toronto East General Hospital. He was a member of the board of the Toronto East Young Men's Christian Association. He was a member of Acacia Lodge, the Royal Canadian Legion and the Scarborough Golf and Country Club.

He and his wife of 49 years, Mary, were both active members of St Aidan's and St Saviour's Anglican churches. His funeral was held at St Saviour's Anglican Church on June 14. A capacity crowd filled the church to pay tribute to a beloved member of the community. A piper from the 48th Highlanders played the lament.

Mr Harris is survived by two children, Jodie and David. He was predeceased by his son William.

He will be remembered well in East Toronto for his countless contributions to the community, and I'm honoured to recognize him in the House today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1997

Mr Colle moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr90,

An Act respecting the City of York.

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

EDUCATION QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DE LA QUALITÉ DE L'ÉDUCATION

Mr Snobelen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 160,

An Act to reform the education system, protect classroom funding, and enhance accountability, and make other improvements consistent with the Government's education quality agenda, including improved student achievement and regulated class size / Projet de loi 160, Loi visant à réformer le système scolaire, à protéger le financement des classes, à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte et à apporter d'autres améliorations compatibles avec la politique du gouvernement en matière de qualité de l'éducation, y compris l'amélioration du rendement des élèves et la réglementation de l'effectif des classes.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 37.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, September 23, 1997, and Wednesday, September 24, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION REFORM

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): This government is committed to the goal of having the highest student achievement in Canada and providing that education in the most cost-effective way.

Ontario has not kept pace with the other provinces or countries. The Globe and Mail recently described Ontario as the caboose at the end of the education train. We're not satisfied with that position. We're working to provide our students with a strong grasp of the skills they'll need to have successful careers in today's competitive economy.

Last year, we announced our intention to move Ontario students to the head of the class. We've been meeting that commitment by introducing a clear, challenging, consistent province-wide curriculum, regular province-wide testing and a standard report card. These initiatives will ensure that students have the skills to move ahead and that parents can clearly understand how their child is progressing. We're building a new four-year secondary school program which is streamed and has a more rigorous curriculum. We have passed legislation that will reduce the number of politicians and bureaucrats and will remove waste and duplication.

Now we're taking the next step in our comprehensive plan for education. A few minutes ago, I introduced the Education Quality Improvement Act. The act is the result of months of hard work. I want to recognize the efforts of the many people who have contributed to this bill. First, the contribution of the Education Improvement Commission. Their recent report, The Road Ahead, provides insight into the importance of limiting class size and raising the level of student achievement.

Currently, school boards and unions often make agreements that increase class sizes. Parents are concerned that large classes affect their child's ability to learn. We share that concern. Under our proposals, boards would no longer be able to increase class sizes.

In their report, the EIC recommended that students would benefit from more instructional time in the school year. It makes no sense to me that Ontario students receive fewer hours of instruction than students in Switzerland, Jordan and Slovenia. We recognize that student achievement goes up when students spend more time with their teachers. The EIC indicated that although elementary teachers spend the same average number of hours in the classroom as teachers in other provinces, high school teachers do not. We believe high school teachers should be able to spend more time with their students.

If this bill is passed, it would allow the government to set standards for the amount of time teachers spend in the classroom.

In addition to the EIC, I also want to recognize the fruitful discussions that we've had with parents, teachers and school boards. Their positive suggestions have helped ensure the introduction of good, effective legislation.

This bill would help to ensure a smooth transition to new school boards by improving the governance of schools, increasing parental involvement and simplifying the financing of the education system.

The bill proposes that advisory school councils would be established in every school. This would increase the opportunities for parents in the community to become more involved in the education of their children. School councils would advise principals on student discipline, student safety and on local priorities.

The bill proposes that the province would be responsible for setting all education property tax rates. We promised to cut residential education property taxes in half. Today I'm pleased to announce that we're keeping that promise. This legislation would introduce a province-wide, uniform residential education tax rate beginning in 1998. Residential education tax revenues would be cut from $5 billion to $2.5 billion and the rate would be frozen.

In this act, along with the two fair municipal finance acts, the government would make property taxes fairer and more consistent across the province. With these changes, owners of residential properties with the same assessed value would pay the same education property tax, no matter where that property is.

A uniform rate structure for residential property taxes is fair and is consistent with this government's plan to ensure that students across the province have equal access to high-quality education. It makes sense to pay tax at the same rate for a common service that benefits us all. This approach would solve the problem of spiralling education taxes. School boards would no longer need to be in the taxing business.

As I announced last Friday, the bill would not limit free collective bargaining. During the transition and after, unions and school boards will bargain freely under the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. Negotiations for a first collective agreement would begin on January 1. Existing terms would continue during the new negotiations.

The bill would allow us to set standards for quality. These standards would include the amount of instructional time, length of the school year and enhancing student access to professionals with the special expertise that they need. These are educational standards that should not be used as a bargaining chip.

We know that the best options are those in which teachers, school boards and the government work together. We've listened to their input. We've found flexibility in meeting our objectives without compromising any of them and we will work together to build a new, better, more accountable education system.

This bill is a significant step forward for our children.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): What a hypocritical piece of verbiage. This has nothing to do --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Order, member for Scarborough East. I ask the member to withdraw.

Mrs McLeod: I withdraw, but I tell you that none of this, none of it, is about educational reform and it certainly has nothing to do with "education quality improvement," to quote the name of the act. This is all about money and control and about nothing else. It is about this government and the Minister of Education wanting to control the purse-strings and make all the rules and then dump all the responsibility on to local school boards to make it work, and all the blame on to teachers and school trustees when it won't work.

It cannot work. It cannot work for students because this government has already squeezed the educational budget and Mike Harris needs even more money, at least another $1 billion for his tax cut. Boards and teachers are going to be forced to do battle to figure out how to make the minister's new rules work, when the minister has no intention of providing enough money to give this a fair chance.

We have just had a new omnibus bill for education tabled today. We cannot know yet all the details of what the minister is doing in this bill. I do know that in his statement, because this bill is at least something about collective bargaining for teachers, there is no mention that he is going to repeal Bill 100, the bill that currently governs teachers' bargaining rights. With the repeal of Bill 100 he removes the Education Relations Commission, the sole body which has ensured that students' jeopardy in the event of a strike is monitored. He's taking away all protection for students in the collective bargaining situation.

It is clear that this government is trying to avoid a province-wide fight, which the government has realized it can't win. I don't know why they wanted to pick that fight in the first place, because Mike Harris didn't need to fight at a provincial level. He can leave all the fighting to the local level and just wash his hands of the responsibility of it. That's what the Minister of Education wants to do with this bill today.

It's going to be a little tougher in education to wash their hands of responsibility, because they are going to control all of the dollars, and now they want to control class size so that they can say, "We've limited class size." The problem is they won't give the boards enough money to reduce class sizes. They're going to expect the boards to find the money by cutting somewhere else. The minister even suggests that boards and teachers have reached "agreements that increase class size" in the past. He could have taken time to get the grammar right, but I'll let that go.

I do want to say that the only situations in which I have ever seen agreements reached between boards and teachers that increase class size is when they are forced to do it by government cuts and that's the only way they can save junior kindergarten or keep class sizes in grades 1 and 2 lower.

Now the boards are going to be forced to cut preparation time and see extracurriculars disappear and maybe 6,000 to 10,000 teachers' jobs so that the Minister of Education can cut another half a billion dollars in prep time. They're going to be forced to contract out custodial and secretarial services in the hopes that part-time and temporary help will save dollars. They're going to be forced to replace guidance teachers and technology teachers and teacher-librarians and music and art and phys ed teachers with non-teachers. They'll be forced to do all this and much more because this government will set class sizes but they will not fund them.

The government may be stepping back from provincial fights, but it is creating conditions for bitter, divisive battles at the local level, battles between teachers and trustees and between parents and trustees, battles which cannot achieve anything but to hurt kids, because this province is putting all the responsibility on local boards and it is taking away all the ability to find local solutions that work for students.

The government is indeed taking over taxing property for education. They don't know yet how it's going to be done; that's one of those details for the future, like funding formulas, which we will not see for at least two months, the minister says.

I think Ottawa and Metropolitan Toronto should not take much assurance from the statement that taxes are going to stay in the community, because of course the province is going to tax homes 50% less for education; they've dumped all the other services on the property tax base. But it is very unlikely that the province is going to give Toronto and Ottawa back any more dollars for education, so the students in those areas are still going to lose out by millions and millions of dollars.

This minister continues to give a distorted picture of what happens in schools. He notes that class sizes are larger than the number of teachers would indicate. How naïve can he pretend to be? He knows where those teachers are: They're in kindergarten classes and in grade 1 and 2 classes, where you have fewer students than you do in other classes; they're in technology shops and labs, supervising smaller numbers of students for safety reasons; they're in special education classes. That's where the supposedly missing classroom teachers are, and when John Snobelen takes control, they will undoubtedly disappear.

The commission said one thing that this minister has refused to answer to, and that is, "Put money back into education." Until he does that --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's interesting that this minister cannot ever speak about anything related to education without bad-mouthing the system. To describe Ontario's education system as "the caboose at the end of the education train" indicates the whole attitude of this minister, who has attempted to create a crisis and undermine the confidence the people of Ontario have in the education system ever since he was appointed to this portfolio.

The fact is that this government intends to take $1 billion more, over and above what it has already cut out of classroom education, despite the promise the Tories made in the last provincial election. His euphemism, "the most cost-effective way," is simply a way of the minister saying he intends to take another $1 billion out of education.

However he tries to dress it up, he cannot ignore the fact that when he says school boards in this province are going to have the same sort of funding, are going to have the same sort of service and the same system of taxation for that common service across Ontario, what he's talking about is a race to the bottom in terms of quality of education in Ontario for the students of this province.

The minister tries to say he is not limiting free collective bargaining. In other words, he is saying that because he said he was going to withdraw the teachers' right to strike that they've had for over 20 years in this province, and because he was going to take principals and vice-principals out of the bargaining unit and because he was going to end the situation where members of the teaching profession must be members of the federations in order to teach, somehow he has not affected free collective bargaining.

Here's news for you, Minister: Teachers have been bargaining on behalf of the students as well as themselves for 20 years in this province and they intend to continue to do so. You cannot take the right to determine class size, to determine pupil-teacher ratio away from free collective bargaining and argue that you haven't affected free collective bargaining. You're limiting free collective bargaining through this legislation.

The minister tries to ignore the fact that teachers don't just negotiate their working conditions; they negotiate the educational conditions for the students in their classrooms. The teachers are concerned about the quality of education as it relates to the kids in their classrooms. The teachers know that a government that is determined to take $1 billion out of education is not interested in the quality of education for students in the classrooms of Ontario. The fact this government has said it can do that without affecting quality education indicates either the minister doesn't understand how education funding works in Ontario or he doesn't care. I suspect it's the latter of the two.

The minister cannot say he will make regulations with regard to the length of the school year, the length of instructional time and at the same time say he's not affecting free collective bargaining. The fact is that teachers are determined to protect their right to negotiate not only on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of the quality of education and their students in Ontario.

There is another piece of legislation before this House that is going to return the right of cottagers in cottage country to vote for school boards. After seeing this legislation, I don't understand why it makes any difference who gets to vote for school boards in this province, because school boards are completely emasculated by this legislation. On the one hand, the government is taking the money away from the school boards and, on the other hand, they are going to regulate class size. The fact is, the school boards are not going to be able to make that circle square.

You can't take the money out and at the same time protect class size. Class sizes have increased in the past when money has been taken out of education. If you take a billion dollars out and at the same time make a regulation on class size, all it is is an attack on the teachers and on the students of this province.

The government can't have it both ways. Either they're interested in protecting the quality of education, they're interested in local autonomy and local decision-making by school boards or they're interested in taking the money out. The bottom line with regard to all the moves by this government is that they are interested in taking as many tax dollars as possible out of education; they are not interested in protecting the quality of education or free collective bargaining in this province.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take the time to introduce in the Speaker's gallery Mr Peter Nagle, member of Parliament for Auburn, Sydney, New South Wales. Welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I wish to welcome the 12th group of pages to serve in this 36th Parliament:

Alexandra Ainley from Simcoe West; Cecilia Bastedo from Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Robert Bevilacqua from York Centre; Meghan Brooks from Wentworth North; Mary Jeanette Burch from Bruce; Matthew Chomyn from Etobicoke-Humber; Katherine Colucci from Mississauga South; Biko Franklin, Wilson Heights; Bradley Griffin, Hamilton West; Lee Ann Harris, York South; Christian Kimmerer, Oshawa; Nicole Lamothe, Windsor-Sandwich; Catherine MacDonald, Kingston and The Islands; Philip MacDonald, London North; Michael McLellan, Wellington; Brian Murnaghan, Willowdale; Daniel Olma, Dufferin-Peel; Krista Renaud, Grey-Owen Sound; Sarah Rice-Bredin, Port Arthur; Lisa Ventola, Halton Centre.

DEFERRED VOTES

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We have a deferred vote on a motion for changes to the membership of the standing committees; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1418 to 1423.

The Speaker: For the record, as you are seated, it's Michael McLellan from Wellington. I have a typo here, so I mispronounced it. Thank you. And if you believe there's a typo --

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Brown, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

North, Peter

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 38.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: You will know with the rule changes that it is required that members file a written note to the Speaker at least one hour prior to when this may be brought up. I have done so. In the interests of time, I would like to read the body of my point of privilege. It's pursuant to standing order 26(c).

I believe that the time allocation motion on Bill 136 is compromising my privileges as a member of this assembly, specifically the provisions related to public hearings. According to the time allocation motion, I have only one hour of the next sessional day between the end of public hearings on Bill 136 at 5 pm, Friday, September 26, and the time required to file amendments to the legislation with the committee clerk at 10 am, Monday, September 29, to fully consider the values of the presentations at the hearings, give weight to possible amendments, have amendments drafted in legal form.

While the standing orders are silent on the specific allocation of preparation time for clause-by-clause, I submit to you that in the case of controversial and complex legislation such as Bill 136, in the absence of all-party agreement, the practice, the precedent, the usage and the custom has been to allow for a reasonable period of preparation time for the filing and consideration of amendments in committee.

I respectfully request that you rule on my point of privilege and find that the time allocation motion on Bill 136 indeed infringes, in practice, in precedent, in usage and in custom, on my privilege as a member of this assembly in being able to carry out my duties.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would like to add the concerns of our caucus in the same matter. Not only is it impractical to expect that amendments can be concluded in such a short period of time, but without having the actual amendments to Bill 136, which the minister has announced are going to cause a major rewriting of the bill, how do we know what amendments we are offering to an amended bill when we haven't seen their amendments? The whole time allocation motion very much denies our rights, as members of this House in opposition, to provide effective, considered, responsible, credible opposition to the government when (

a) we don't have the time to do the job and (

b) we don't have the information.

If I can, I would also say that today the subcommittee meets. The hearings are supposed to start tomorrow. The advertising has not started. How does anybody even know when they're going to speak this week since there is no preparation time and, again, what is it they speak to when they make a submission when we haven't seen the government's amendments?

This is a very serious matter, Speaker, and I would urge you on behalf of both opposition parties to give it as much consideration as you can.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): This is just a normal process. The time allocation motion that's been put forward --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon David Johnson: The motion put forward specifies four days of public hearings.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): What on?

Mr Christopherson: What on?

Hon David Johnson: On Bill 136.

The Speaker: Order. Members of the opposition, I ask you to come to order. I listened to your points of order. With respect, the government didn't heckle. I ask you to do the same.

Hon David Johnson: Clearly, many members will speak to the bill. They can speak to the amendments they wish to put forward. There is no difference in this particular committee from any other committee. There have been extensive consultations that have taken place over quite a period of time through the Ministry of Labour with various interest groups. These public hearings will be an extension of that.

All parties will be represented on this committee. They have four days, which is four days more than we had during the social contract period, I might add for the benefit of the third party. There is a weekend period between the final day of the public hearings and the clause-by-clause. There is the ability over that weekend period to consider any amendments that are coming out of the process in the clause-by-clause period, two days of clause-by-clause.

There is nothing unusual about this. Indeed, this is the kind of process this House has undertaken with many other bills and I don't think there are any particular grounds to rule this out of order.

Mr Patten: The government House leader knows full well that this is not a normal procedure. I contend that only in cases in which you had all-party agreement would you have such a short period of time in which to consider, draft and submit your amendments. When the House leader says that this is normal, that this is procedure, this is the procedure according to the new day and the new thinking of this government and their rule changes, to try to not allow members to fulfil their duties and responsibilities in the most adequate way possible. In this particular instance it does not provide an opportunity to do such.

Mr Christopherson: I will be very brief. The government House leader speaks to the issue of consultation and the fact that they had consultation. You, Speaker, and the rest of this House and the whole province know that there was absolutely no consultation with the labour movement when they brought in Bill 136 -- none whatsoever. The issue for us on privilege -- and of course we had the political debate around the time allocation and how we felt about that, but this very much is a matter of privilege, given the fact that these are not normal circumstances, and the government House leader knows that.

His minister, the member sitting right beside him, stood up last week and announced a major gutting and rewriting of Bill 136 but has still not provided the written amendments. What exactly are we expecting people to comment on next week, and how are we supposed to consider input, such as it is, at 4:59 on Friday, when from 5 o'clock until Monday morning at 10 is the only time we have to make the amendments? I would point out that that afternoon we begin debating on those amendments.

Speaker, with regard to the time allocation motion, our privileges as members have definitely been breached and we would ask you and implore you to look at the fact that the announcement last week changed the ball game significantly from any other we've ever experienced in the history of this province.

Hon David Johnson: There's no basis on which announcements of amendments that the government is prepared in a general sense to consider would affect the flow of the committee activity.

The public is invited to come and reflect upon the bill, to give their views on the bill and how the bill would work. There's no difference in this. Because certain amendments were suggested in a general context does not take away from the ability of the deputants to come and speak to the bill and to what they would like to see in the bill.

The Speaker: I want to thank the members who made their positions known, the members for Hamilton Centre, Ottawa Centre and the government House leader. I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for submitting the motion in the proper form before the House today.

Let me just say first off that this time allocation motion is by its nature a time allocation motion, meaning that certain privileges and rights that we expect under normal procedures in fact suffer. There would not be any need for a time allocation or a guillotine motion if the government at the time didn't in fact decide this is what needed to be done to push through whatever piece of legislation they were dealing with.

The argument that you're making, that you are suffering personally because of that time allocation motion, may be a very valid argument, but by its very nature that's what happens when governments introduce time allocation motions. That's what fundamentally is designed to happen. You're dealing with a bill rather more quickly, considerably quicker, than you would in any other normal way. In fact, Erskine May, in the 21st edition, speaks to it very clearly on page 408:

"Allocation of time orders," or guillotine motions

"In many sessions in order to secure the passage of particularly important and controversial legislation, governments have been confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent, or of prolonging the sittings of Parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority.

In such circumstances resort is had sooner or later to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely, the setting of a date by which a committee must report, or the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of a bill and of limited amounts of time to particular portions of a bill. Orders made under this procedure are known as `allocation of time' orders, and colloquially as `guillotine' motions.

They may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate. But the harshness of this procedure is to some extent mitigated either by consultations between the party leaders or in the business committee in order to establish the greatest possible measure of agreement as to the most satisfactory disposal of the time available."

The bottom line is simply, yes, you're right, but time allocations are designed to do just that. I don't find that there is any privilege that's been usurped here.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. A parent came into my constituency office on Friday afternoon with his 12-year-old daughter. He wanted her to tell me about her class at McKellar Park school. She's in a split grade 6-grade 7 class with 31 students. It's actually the smallest intermediate class in that school. They have exactly seven mathematics texts for these 31 students. The photocopying budget has been cut by 20% again this year and the teacher is buying pencils for the students out of his own pocket.

Minister, you're about to take control of both the financing of education and the setting of class sizes. Will you provide enough money to lower class sizes and provide textbooks for every student, or will you expect local school boards to cut teachers' salaries and contract out school maintenance and use non-teachers in the classrooms so they can find the money to meet your new rules?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The references that the member for Fort William makes today to a lack of classroom supplies in some cases, to large class sizes, are exactly the reason why we made a commitment some months ago to take over responsibility for the funding of education, to make sure every student in Ontario, no matter where they are, has the opportunity for a first-quality education. That's the reason we've lifted that burden from school boards and taken it on as a province.

The bill I put forward today would allow us to advance on that, would allow us to make sure that we have control of class sizes for the very first time in this province. I think it's a step forward for the students of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sure we know -- perhaps you don't, Minister -- that nothing you have done today is about educational reform or about bettering education for students. It is all about money. So I want to talk to you about money and I want to talk to you about students.

Your cuts have already forced boards to shut down junior kindergarten programs. Your cuts have already devastated adult education. Your cuts have forced cuts to special education and library services and physical education and guidance and music. Your cuts have already meant teacher layoffs and larger class sizes and fewer courses for secondary school students to choose from.

Minister, you cannot fix any of this unless you give school boards the money to fix it with. You are going to make all the rules. You are going to control all the dollars. You are going to dump all the blame for what happens on the local school board. Will you at least give back the money you have stolen from education and guarantee there will be no more cuts?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Fort William will know that there has been a tradition, there has been a problem with spiralling education property taxes across the province. I don't think that's any --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It's all right to steal, but not to lie.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Lake Nipigon, you must withdraw that comment. It's out of order.

Mr Pouliot: All I said, Speaker, is that it was all right to steal, but not to lie.

The Speaker: I don't need an explanation.

Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw it.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know it won't be any news to the constituents in the member's riding that there have been spiralling education costs on the property taxes. The bill we've put forward today would allow this government to take responsibility for funding. We've said we're committed to making sure that there are sufficient funds available for every student in the province of Ontario. We intend to be held to account for that promise. We will be. We have experts working with us to make sure that happens.

We just put a bill in the House that will end spiralling property taxes for education, that will end spiralling class sizes, which is the other way that education has been deteriorating in the province. It will end both of those things, and the member for Fort William just voted against its introduction. I don't understand that.

Mrs McLeod: Where education taxes have been raised, they have been raised to make up for this government's cuts and to try to protect their board's ability to meet the needs of students. Minister, you talk about equity, you talk about funding formulas that will meet the needs of students, but you're not going to show us the funding formulas for at least two months. People look at what you have done and nobody believes you when you talk about fairness for students.

The Lakehead Board of Education has looked at what it will cost to extend the school year, one of your promises. It will be an extra $274,000. They don't think you're likely going to pay for that with some new money. They've looked at your funding formula proposals for special education and they fear they are going to lose half of what they now spend to meet the needs of their special needs students. They've looked at your proposals for plant maintenance funding and they come up as much as $3 million short.

Minister, boards are looking at this and they are afraid of what you are about to do to them and to their students; teachers are afraid of what you are going to do to them and to their students; and parents are afraid of what you are going to do to their children. Will you get past meaningless words and arbitrary formulas and show us where the money is, Minister?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can show you clearly where the money has been going in education over the course of the last decade. I think the member for Fort William should know that. I believe we've had a number of studies done in Ontario that have suggested doing what we are doing in this bill, which is having the province take responsibility for making sure the funds are there for our children in their classrooms. We will do that. In order to do that, we have sent out some expert panels who will be reporting to us very soon, who will help us set the perimeters for a first-quality education and who will help us make sure the funds are there for our students.

Unlike the member opposite and her government, we do not measure our success by how much we spend. We measure our success by how well our students are doing, and that's where the member will see the improvement.

HOME CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Premier. I'm here to talk to you about one of the people who doesn't seem to quite fit into Mike Harris's Ontario. Her name is Stella Matthews. She's 81 years old, she lives in the Cambridge area and she is being looked after by her daughter, Gail Jones, and her son-in-law, Alan Jones, who is here in the gallery watching. They provide 24-hour care. But Premier, since May they have been threatened with the loss of the little bit, the four to five hours of nursing care or homemaker care they get. They are being threatened with the loss of that, and it will happen on Thursday unless somebody in your government is accountable.

Premier, we wish for you to be accountable. I'm sending across to you a picture of Ms Matthews to show you the circumstances. She is being cared for at home in an advanced state of multiple sclerosis --

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

Mr Kennedy: -- with machines that clear her throat, that feed her, but the family cannot do this alone. Will you undertake today to guarantee they will get an answer from the Ministry of Health and from your government today --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health should respond directly to this.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for the question. I know it's a follow-up to the correspondence he sent to me earlier.

My understanding of the case is twofold. One is that the community care access centre is continuing to provide services, and there is an appeal pending before the Health Services Appeal Board. That's all I can say at this point, except that we are encouraging the community care access centre to continue to provide the services to this individual.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, you should be aware that tomorrow lawyers that you've hired for the community care access centre, private sector lawyers for your ministry, are going to go in to argue that Stella Matthews, who's 81 years old and bedridden, can't be heard at that appeal. So your staff have waited until the nth hour and they've made submissions. Mike McDonald, who's a pro bono lawyer for the family -- we don't know what would happen if this family had to hire a lawyer -- is here today. He has to go in tomorrow and argue against your ministry just for the right to be heard.

You didn't promulgate sections 72 and 73 of the Long-Term Care Act. It's a very good likelihood that this Health Services Appeal Board won't hear Stella Matthews's case tomorrow and she will lose her care on Thursday.

Minister, it is the height of irresponsibility to put a family providing this intense level of care through this kind of anxiety and stress and grief. Will you end it? Will you do something about mediation, about some other solution? Will you promise to do it today?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member knows I can't comment further on this rather complicated case, that it is before the Health Services Appeal Board, which is a quasi-judicial tribunal. We have to respect that process.

Mr Kennedy: It is important for the whole province, because Stella Matthews is one of what will be many people who will no longer stay in hospitals because this government tells them to leave quicker and sicker, who have been told in rosy language that home care, all kinds of advanced care, will be available for them.

What you did was cut their care from 35 hours down to 19 hours and help create conditions that have led to the situation today where their care is going to be lost altogether. Will you at least inquire into the conditions of where home care is being cut, where this family will lose their care once the Health Services Appeal Board tells them they can't hear it tomorrow?

Minister, you're the only person they can go to. If you don't stand up today and say you'll take some responsibility, then on Thursday this family, and this gentleman here, who says he provides 24-hour care, that his wife sleeps beside his mother because they don't get enough help, that she's got sleep deprivation because they don't have enough care from the government --

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Kennedy: This gentleman says his mother-in-law is at risk because of the government. Will you tell him he's wrong?

Hon Mr Wilson: The government didn't take any of the decisions in this case to date. We've increased home care. The case is a little more complicated than the honourable member lets on. Let me just tell you that if the appeal isn't dealt with tomorrow, we will look at the case. Of course we'll look at the case and of course the ministry is involved.

Mr Kennedy: Why wait?

Hon Mr Wilson: "Why wait?" the honourable member says. Because I respect the quasi-judicial process. There is nothing I can do -- and you know that, Mr Kennedy -- while this is before the Health Services Appeal Board.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Education. There is one question bothering everyone in this province who is concerned about education. That question is, how much more money is the Harris Conservative government going to cut from our children's education?

Minister, you've assumed complete control over education funding, and we understand that your ministry officials have been shopping around possible funding models. My question to you is this: Is it true that the funding model you are now working on would cut the education budgets of every board of education in the province except for the poorest 15? Is that the model you're looking at?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the leader of the third party, I want to be very clear that we have made a promise, and that promise is to meet the needs of every student in the province of Ontario for a high-quality education. The reason we are addressing the funding of education in this bill that we introduced today is because we know that the funding formula that currently exists, the general legislative grant programs, makes second-class students of some of our young people in Ontario, and that's not all right with this government.

That's why we are working very hard to make sure we can do that, to assure every student in Ontario a high quality of education, because every student in the province is important to us.

Mr Hampton: I asked the minister a very specific question, one that I thought it would be easy for him to answer. I didn't get an answer. What I got was a dance, so let me try again.

Minister, you've said over and over again that you intend to cut a further $1 billion from our children's education in this province. You've said it on several occasions; it's been reported on several occasions. The legislation being introduced today will give you the tools to make those cuts. It's clear that's what it's all about.

The question is, when are you going to tell people how much more money you're going to take from their children's education? When are you going to release your funding model? Answer my question. Is it true that you're working on a model that will cut every board except for the poorest 15?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The leader of the third party is wrong. We have made a very clear public promise. I'll say it again: We'll meet the education needs of every student in Ontario. We'll make sure they get a high quality of education. We'll make sure they don't get the mediocre education that your government left them. We'll make sure that changes.

But let me tell you this: On the funding of education, we have got the expert panels which will be reporting to me in the very near future. When the expert panels have reported, we'll go out and make sure that their recommendations work in the real world on a board-by-board, school-by-school basis. We'll make sure it's right. Then the province will assume the responsibility for education so that we can make sure every student in the province has a high quality of education.

Your speculation is just that, sir; it is speculation. We are going to let the experts tell us what it takes to make sure every student in this province has a good education.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The minister's confidence in experts is quite scary.

The minister has said today that he intends to set regulations to limit class size, which many people in the province would welcome, but at the same time he is going to continue the cuts and take another $1 billion out of education, thus removing almost all of the flexibility for school boards, particularly because he, the minister, will be setting the mill rate and determining the taxation. Boards will no longer have any financial flexibility.

Surely the minister understands that limiting class sizes means that many school boards will need more classroom space and many will need more teachers, particularly at the elementary level. Does the minister intend to increase funding for capital construction and to hire more teachers for school boards so that the funding will be adequate to meet the needs of current and future enrolment in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Algoma is quite right when he says that the bill I've introduced today would have the effect of limiting flexibility. Flexibility in increasing property taxes, yes, it will certainly limit that; we'll put a cap on that.

It will also limit flexibility in terms of increasing school class sizes so that we can't have what happened under your government, sir, where we had a 7% increase in class sizes across the province in response to your social contract. Yes, we'll take that flexibility out so that we can't have ever-increasing class sizes, so we can't have the results like in Metro separate, where JK went from 18 to 21, grades 1 and 2 went from 23 to 25, grade 3 went from 28 to 31 and grades 4 to 8 went from 32 to 35 as a result of the negotiations.

Yes, we'll reduce that flexibility, but we'll provide lots of flexibility to get our students to the top of the class in terms of their performance.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. A whole bunch of people across Ontario, both public sector workers and public sector employers, are wondering now what public sector labour law will look like since your Minister of Labour announced that she is gutting Bill 136.

Here is the situation, Premier: You brought in time allocation, which shuts off debate, the hearings start tomorrow, but no one has seen the amendments, so no one now knows what is in Bill 136. This is a very strange way to deal with important legislation, legislation that is critical to our public services.

Premier, don't you think that public sector workers and public sector employers and the people of Ontario deserve to see what is in your public sector labour law before they go to public hearings and try to talk about it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Labour can respond.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): As you know, we have been engaged in consultations now throughout the course of the summer and we announced changes on Thursday last week which reflected the fact that we had listened and consulted and we were prepared to make the changes and announce them at this time. In the course of the weekend we have continued to meet with all the major stakeholders and we have shared with them the details. In fact, those meetings are continuing now. In some cases we will be meeting with those stakeholders a second time in order that they understand the details.

All of it has been prepared and the amendments will be ready next week. We have all this week for the people in Ontario to respond to the changes we've made.

Mr Hampton: This is the most absurd situation I have ever seen in the 10 years I've been around this Legislature. The government brings in time allocation --

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Premier, if you want to answer the questions, you can, all right?

The government brings in time allocation, shuts off debate, then the minister stands up and says, "We're going to gut the bill." Now hospital executives, hospital boards, don't know what the labour law is going to be for the public sector. Municipalities don't know what the labour law is going to be for the public sector. Workers don't know what it's going to be. Unions don't know what it's going to be. The minister says there are amendments but she won't show them to anyone. It's as if she's got to hide them away.

Minister, this is absurd. If you want people to be able to contribute to Ontario, show them your amendments so people can see what the proposed law is going to be and then hold the public hearings. At least have that much respect for democracy.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think the member is somewhat in error when he comments about the amendments. We indicated last week that we are prepared to make changes to the legislation. Tomorrow we will publicly share again with the members of the committee the details of those changes, just as we're doing as we meet now with AMO, with the hospital association, with the OFL, with the police. In fact, we have already indicated to you, unlike what you used to do, the direction we're headed and we are giving people an opportunity to respond to the changes we're making. They have all week.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Minister, you can appreciate how we might feel about what you say in this place and what you do, given what you did to your promise about travelling around the province and listening to everyone who deserved to be heard.

The majority on the subcommittee of the resources development committee are not buying what you're saying either. They know there is a need to hear the amendments before we have any kind of public input. That committee recommendation goes to the full committee today. Since it's your government backbenchers who form the majority on the committee, will you stand today and urge those government backbenchers to support the subcommittee's recommendation that you indeed table those amendments before the hearings to try to save some shred of credibility, of whatever is left of your reputation in this matter?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to you that unlike your government, which had not one day of public hearings on the social contract and which passed the social contract in about three weeks, we have been consulting since July on the bill. In fact, we have even moved forward and indicated to you the changes we're prepared to make and you now have an opportunity to respond to the changes we're proposing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just conclude by indicating that I know it's a surprise to the NDP that we have done exactly as we said we would do, and that was to listen, to consult and then to bring forward changes.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: You broke your promise. You couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I ask that you withdraw that comment. That's unparliamentary.

Mr Christopherson: Speaker, she did not tell the truth.

The Speaker: I give you one more opportunity to withdraw it, member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: With great respect, I cannot do that.

The Speaker: I name the member for Hamilton Centre, Mr Christopherson.

Mr Christopherson was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer : This week there's an opportunity for public discussion on the changes we introduced last week, and tomorrow afternoon I will be sharing with the committee further detail on those changes.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. It has become apparent today that the report from CISO, the Criminal Intelligence Service of Ontario, is becoming increasingly public. Indeed its contents were the subject of the lead story in the Windsor Star today, which of course headlines the criminal element involved.

You have recently announced 44 permanent casinos, the majority of which will operate year-round, 24 hours a day, and which will contain up to 6,600 video lottery terminals in total, electronic slot machines that are the most alluring and most addictive form of gambling.

The criminal intelligence report states: "Legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling. In fact it compliments it. Experts indicate that the introduction of new legal games brings in new players, a significant number of which yield to the lure of illegal gambling activities to satisfy their interests."

Premier, in view of the contents of this report, in view of all the problems that are arising, will you agree to place a moratorium on the spread of video slot machines by keeping them out of the 44 permanent charity casinos and bars and restaurants in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will answer that.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I have made inquiries and I have been advised that it is not a CISO document. I haven't seen the report, obviously, but I will say this. There are a couple of indications in the news report of what the concern is. Certainly one part of that is the concern about the poor regulation that has taken place in the bingo industry.

This is a follow-up, I believe, on the CISO report of last year in which certain concerns were addressed and indicated. I am pleased to tell you that despite how poorly the bingo industry had been regulated by prior governments, as of October 1, 1996, the commercial bingo halls have now had to comply with stringent standards regarding internal controls, tracking of paper and audit requirements.

I will also indicate to you that the report from last year, because that was a concern, the member for St Catharines certainly raised it, indicated there was a concern at that point in time about bingo halls, break-open tickets and Monte Carlo nights. It was particularly critical of security at Monte Carlo nights. This is the reason why we're moving to permanent charity gaming clubs.

Mr Bradley: I don't recall mentioning bingos or anything else. I recall video lottery terminals or electronic slot machines, which are the most addictive and alluring form of gambling that we have in the province, and the spread of them to 44 permanent casinos around the province and ultimately to bars and restaurants in Ontario.

Minister, will you assure the House on behalf of the Premier, since the Premier would not, despite what he said during the last election campaign, that this government will never allow the placement of video lottery terminals in bars and restaurants in the neighbourhoods of the towns and villages and cities of Ontario, and will you ensure that those illegal machines which may be in existence today are taken out of existence by the policing of members of the police forces across Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We have indicated already that we are looking at video lottery terminals with respect to the racing industry and race tracks and also with respect to charity gaming clubs.

The member seems to be concerned about illegal gaming, as we all are, as I am. I certainly applaud his raising this point. We are a government that believes in providing tools to combat illegal gaming in this province. We have indicated already that we're going to be dedicating about $7 million for additional resources to combat illegal video lotteries and other illegal gambling in this province. This is an increase of the OPP's illegal gaming unit from six officers under prior governments up to 35. We're seconding about eight officers from Metro and we have special prosecutors to make sure we carry through.

In addition to that, we have increased the complement of enforcement officers on staff to eight.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Just to give you an indication, quickly, in 1993 only three charges were laid by the NDP government's --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. New question.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last Friday, I issued a press release exposing the critical shortage of intensive care unit beds in the city of London. All of last week and continuing over the weekend, I understand, there were no intensive care unit beds available at either hospital. Of course, we know that means staffed beds, not the actual bed itself but beds that are staffed by the professionals who care for the patients.

When this kind of problem occurs it means that major surgeries have to be cancelled, that there is no capacity to deal with accidents, that patients who are too fragile to be transported have to be looked after in emergency rooms or recovery rooms.

The doctors, nurses and hospital officials in London, who are cooperating fully with you on your restructuring plan, are begging you to begin to reinvest some resources into the critical care units in London to enable them to ensure that critical care is not jeopardized while restructuring goes on. Yet your member for London South says bad news is good, that the crunch indicates your plan is working. Minister, do you agree with the member for London South?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I think my colleague from London South was pointing out that the NDP cut ICU beds during their time in office by 30% in London. We've not cut one ICU bed in our almost two and a half years in office. You should have put out the press release when you were in office and cut 30% of the ICU beds.

Having said that, the good news that my honourable colleague was pointing out is that the commission is ordering that we go from the current low level of beds and bring back some of the beds that the NDP government cut. They're suggesting we go to 75 or, as indicated in a letter today from Mr Dagnone, the CEO of the London Health Sciences Centre , we probably should go from 75 to 80 ICU beds. We'll be encouraging London to do exactly that.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, you encourage all you like. Does that mean you're going to fund those beds? Does that mean you're going to end some of the cuts that you've made to funding? Hundreds of millions of dollars have come out of those hospitals and you say you're going to encourage them? Encourage them with the money.

Let's listen to what these doctors and nurses say. First of all, Janet Robertson, a 30-year operating room nurse: "I am sick and tired of hearing that patient care is not suffering. I'm seeing very sick people suffering because of the funding cutbacks."

The head of surgery at St Joseph's said that unless funds are made available for staffing additional ICU beds, the whole system is in danger.

Mr Dagnone, whom you just quoted, said, "This is the toughest year I have ever seen in health care." He also said:

"We are having serious difficulties in finding that next bed for that next emergency patient.... We do not have the capacity to meet the demand that is out there.... We are putting a lot of volume through and putting it through with fewer resources."

How long is this going to go on? You try and put the blame on other people. You've been the minister for a year and a half. When are you going to take responsibility?

Hon Mr Wilson: I was astounded that the member who cut the beds had the gall over the weekend to put out a press release blaming this government, that has not cut ICU beds. That credit goes to the London Health Sciences Centre.

Yes, there is pressure on ICU beds because they're getting more referrals. When Mr Dagnone is talking about never seeing a year like it, he's getting more referrals from the outlying areas, and because of our $35-million investment in cardiac care, London Health Sciences Centre has been asked to do an extra 200 cardiac surgeries. He points out in his remarks to you, to the media and to me that those 200 surgeries all eventually have to go through ICU and it's putting pressure on the beds.

The commission is recognizing that pressure. It's asking the government to fund more beds, to restore the beds the NDP cut, and we're going to do that.

SELF-MANAGEMENT

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, I know your ministry is moving towards self-management of a number of business sectors that your ministry currently regulates. I support these measures and encourage you in that. In fact, I sat on the justice committee for Bill 54, the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, and I know it's part of your ministry business plan.

On behalf of the travel agents in particular from Fort Erie, Port Colborne and Wainfleet, my question today is, what progress has the ministry made towards the smooth transition to self-management and how are you ensuring that consumers are protected in this process?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The government clearly indicated our intention in Bill 54 to move towards industry self-management in industries that were felt to be mature. This would include certain functions such as administration, licensing and some of the enforcement functions.

We will ensure that the consumer is protected because we're talking about self-management and not about self-regulation. The government still retains our regulatory functions to set standards and monitor the performance of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario. TICO started operations on June 25, 1997, and also manages the travel industry compensation fund.

To ensure a seamless transition to the new self-managed, non-profit organization, MCCR will supply staff and technical support for the first six months. Our ministry will maintain responsibility for consumer protection since the consumer legislation and regulations will still fall under our responsibility. We also have indicated we will have government representation but also consumer representation on these councils.

I would like to take this time to quickly applaud --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You'll have to do that in the supplementary.

Mr Hudak: I'm pleased to hear there's success emanating from Bill 54. I'm also pleased to hear that you'll still maintain representation on the board.

The other side of the coin is, how can we maintain consumer protection? What steps can the ministry take to make sure that the interests of consumers are satisfied?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As I indicated earlier on, part of what we're trying to do to ensure that the consumer is protected in Ontario is that we have a government ministry official who has been appointed to the board by the name of Sue Corke. Second, we have a couple of representatives from consumers, one of whom is Lillian Morgenthau, who represents the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

I'd like to emphasize that what we're doing here is self-management, not self-regulation. We will continue to regulate and monitor the industries. We have the right, of course, to appoint members to sit on these industries. We have the right to require annual reports and reporting back on individual cases. Certainly the important thing to remember here is that we will maintain the regulatory function.

Since June 25, TICO has laid charges under the Travel Industry Act. They have taken some steps such as suspending travel agents' registrations, and they have conducted a number of investigations.

HOME CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I want to go back to the Minister of Health with regard to the situation of Stella Matthews. You said you had to wait for the Health Services Appeal Board. You're aware that the Health Services Appeal Board cannot hear -- at least in a number of cases in the past they have actually decided they cannot hear appeals on long-term care.

If the Health Services Appeal Board tomorrow says they can't hear Stella Matthews's case, she will be left without care come Thursday. Why are you sending expensive lawyers in to prepare briefs, to prepare cases -- we understand there are two sets of them, for your ministry and for the community access centre -- when you know in advance that Ms Matthews will be turned down on a technicality of your government's making? You have not made that board available to hear appeals on home care. Will you stand up today, perhaps with this new information, and perhaps change the way you can respond to this as a result? The Matthews family would much appreciate it.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member is making it sound like the family is not receiving care now. My understanding from the community care access centre directly is that they are continuing to provide the home care while this very complex matter is being dealt with before the appeal board. I have never heard, except for the allegation made today during his press conference in his office at 1 o'clock, that the family is going to be cut off come next Thursday or whenever.

Our assurance is the community care access centre will continue to provide care, and they all have a right to appear before the Health Services Appeal Board. We have to respect that process. I don't know what the outcome will be tomorrow. I don't even know whether it will all be solved tomorrow. It's just that we're going to try to keep providing care and see what the appeal board says. That's the best I can tell the honourable member at this point.

Mr Kennedy: I spoke to the people in your ministry. They directed that care would continue only until Thursday -- your ministry, not the community care centre. Both your ministry and the community care centre are arguing tomorrow in this quasi-judicial court that Stella Matthews cannot be heard. They've got her running around in a loop that doesn't end -- except on Thursday. They have said conclusively they will not provide care beyond September 25.

At least today, if you, like many of us here, disagree that they should be pushed to the precipice like this, to not know whether that care will be there on Thursday, will you agree to ensure that that care is there for the foreseeable future until this family can get the care and the attention it deserves?

Hon Mr Wilson: I cannot comment further on this case.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a question for the Attorney General with respect to his mismanaged family support plan. It has been over a year since the regional office closed in Windsor with respect to the family support plan. Women who are owed support can't get through to the 1-800 line. Their faxes and their letters go unresponded to, and they don't get the cheques because they are either lost or delayed.

I want to tell you about Sharon Stockford. She lives in Windsor. She has been receiving money from the plan since 1990, and she had never had any problems until January of this year, after the regional office was closed. She has been trying to find someone to listen to her since June of this year, to inform them that one of her children is no longer residing at home. She recognizes that the payor is paying too much and that she is not entitled to the money. She is worried that she is going to be penalized later on.

Regular payments have been bungled since January, and she knows that this is going to complicate her payment schedule. When are you going to start listening to women like Sharon? When are you going to clean up this mess? When are you going to take steps to ensure that women can be heard and their problems dealt with?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question, because I understand that the Family Responsibility Office attempted to contact your constituency office last week to find out if there were any cases that you needed assistance on. Apparently, your phones weren't turned on, and someone from the NDP caucus office said to call back a week later.

If there is a problem, the member has been advised to let us know and we will look at it. But the member knows quite well that there can be a number of reasons that money isn't flowing. It can be as a result of the employer, the payor and sometimes indeed because the court has ordered certain adjustments to be made.

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

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell you that the Family Responsibility Office distributes money within 24 to 48 hours of receiving it. If the money is being received, if there is no court order preventing a --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's really interesting that the minister can always pretend somebody else is to blame. Quite frankly, Minister, if you don't care about the women and children who are suffering because they can't get their money, maybe you care about your friends the employers. We're getting more and more phone calls in our offices from employers who are furious about the way they're being treated by the FSP office.

I'll give you an example. Cathy Plinke, who works with Canadian Custom Countertops Inc in London, called my constituency office on Friday. Cathy had kept on receiving phone call after phone call from the FSP office demanding payment of moneys that had been remitted on the part of an employee, and each time she told them when the cheque had been remitted. On Thursday, FSP called four times, and each time the call was from a different worker and she had to give the same answer. Finally, on Friday, after another rude phone call from FSP when your staff member slammed the phone down in her ear, Cathy learned from her bank that the cheque had already been cashed.

Minister, this is a small business. There are small businesses all over this province that are experiencing great difficulty because you've messed up the program. When are you going to deal with the mess you've caused at the family support plan?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have made great strides in making it easier for employers to deal with the family support plan. We've introduced electronic banking. We've provided software programs so that the employers can much more easily than ever before remit money to the family support plan. The indications are that we are distributing money coming through the family support plan faster than it has ever been distributed before. Not only that, we continue to clean up the mess left by the regional offices.

We are now down from 90,000 pieces of backlogged information to 38,000, things that had been neglected in the old family support plan for years, going back to 1993. We are making great strides in making the plan more accessible to the employers who help us distribute the money.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): There has been a tremendous concern in my constituency of Nepean in the last 12 years over the increase in welfare caseloads. There is a real understanding that welfare caseloads go up when unemployment rises, but my constituents have been very concerned that in the 1980s, as the unemployment rate dropped, the welfare caseload actually went up.

The provincial government has adjusted the welfare benefit rate. They have clarified the criteria. They've cracked down on any fraud in the system. Can the minister tell my constituents about not just the success of the welfare reforms in Ontario but specifically tell us how Ottawa-Carlton's performance has been, compared to the rest of the province?

Interjection.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): If we can do this over the comments of the Windsor-Sandwich member across the way, who seems to be unaware that what we've seen in Ontario is a marked break in the practice of the last 10 years on welfare, where we saw a 113% increase in the number of people on welfare -- what we've seen in the last two years in Ontario is 218,000 fewer people, and that is translated in the region of Ottawa-Carleton into 6,600 fewer cases of people trapped on welfare. That's a 12% decrease. That shows that not only is there job growth in this province, but also that our welfare reforms are working.

Mr Baird: Minister, my constituents were concerned because in Ottawa-Carleton we're creating so many jobs that if the welfare rate went up like it did in the 1980s, we couldn't afford to pay it. Considering that the decrease has been a double-digit drop in the welfare caseload in Ottawa-Carleton, could the minister tell us specifically how the hardworking taxpayers, hardworking families, in Nepean will benefit from these reforms?

Hon Mrs Ecker: One of the exciting things about what is happening with the welfare caseload is not only that it is a win for those individuals who are no longer trapped on welfare, and we know that the majority of them have left welfare for employment-related reasons, but the other good news is the savings for taxpayers. In the Ottawa-Carleton area they have saved over $14 million in the last two years because of these reductions.

If you're looking to try to put that into some sort of perspective for the public, this province is helping to fund two new high schools in this area, in the member's riding. Each one of those high schools costs about $10 million. That gives you some sense of what these savings can mean for taxpayers.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My question is to the minister responsible for francophone affairs. Monsieur le Ministre, le 4 novembre 1996, je vous ai posé une question en Chambre sur le transfert des services du niveau provincial aux municipalités. À ce moment-là vous avez été très vague. Vous avez parlé du rapport Qui Fait Quoi. Maintenant que l'étude Qui Fait Quoi a été déposée, est-ce que aujourd'hui vous pouvez devenir plus précis dans votre réponse et rassurer la communauté franco-ontarienne que tous les services provinciaux qui seront transférés au niveau municipal seront garantis à la communauté francophone de l'Ontario ?

J'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer l'Association des municipalités franco-ontariennes. J'ai rencontré mon collègue des affaires municipales avec l'AMFO et nous en avons discuté. Nous allons faire cette étude, ainsi que desservir, programme par programme, et l'AMFO nous appuie fortement de ce côté-là. Je peux rassurer mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est qu'avec le soutien d'AMFO et avec les négociations qui vont se produire, nous allons bel et bien continuer à desservir notre francophonie ontarienne comme elle le connaît.

M. Bernard Grandmaître : Laissez-moi vous rassurer que j'ai rencontré l'Association des municipalités franco-ontariennes la semaine dernière, et c'était un des sujets d'inquiétude non seulement au niveau municipal de la communauté francophone.

Monsieur le Ministre, votre collègue le ministre des Affaires municipales était beaucoup plus précis que vous l'êtes aujourd'hui. La semaine dernière, le ministre des Affaires municipales disait qu'il était pour faire l'évaluation, que chaque programme sera évalué, mais par contre, aucune garantie ne sera donnée que les services seront maintenus. Je vous demande aujourd'hui, comme représentant de la francophonie en Ontario, est-ce que vous allez garantir que tous les services transférés au niveau municipal vont demeurer tels qu'ils sont aujourd'hui ?

L'hon M. Villeneuve : Je peux certainement garantir à mon collègue que les négociations se font programme par programme. Et puis, comme vous l'avez dit, mon collègue des affaires municipales lui a donné l'assurance aussi. Puis l'Office des Affaires francophones en Ontario va certainement travailler conjointement avec le ministère des Affaires municipales pour assurer que les services que nous connaissons en Ontario dans le moment vont continuer.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Parents in my riding of Riverdale, a downtown east end Toronto riding, are very worried that you don't understand the special needs of inner-city schools. I understand you're going to be meeting with some of the Toronto parents, and I appreciate that, but there are schools in my riding where up to 90% of the students are new Canadians and need ESL, there are children who live in deep poverty, there are kids who need a space at school to do homework and need supplementary instruction after school, and those are just a few of the special needs.

We know that your funding formula is going to remove funding from the Toronto Board of Education. So I want to know today for the parents and kids in my riding, what measures are you going to take to ensure that these very special programs that are so badly needed in the schools in my riding remain intact?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to assure the member opposite that we do understand that there are different circumstances around the province of Ontario. In some parts of large urban centres like Toronto, we obviously find different circumstances than we would in smaller towns.

Ms Churley: First of all, Minister, I would appreciate it if you would come to some of the schools in parts of my riding and see for yourself what the teachers have to deal with within some of these schools. It is a very tough job. When you stand up today and talk about these grants, I guess the important question again is, we do not want to see things reduced to the lowest common denominator.

What I would ask you then in terms of those grants is, can you guarantee that the amount of money that goes to the schools from these grants will at least equal the amount of money that the schools are now getting from the board to ensure that the programs are at least as good as they are now? God knows they could use some improvement, but I can assure you that if they don't get the same funding, because they're already stretched, the kids in my riding who need these special programs are really going to be in trouble.

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

Ms Churley: Minister, can you assure me of that today?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can assure the member that our intention is not just to maintain programs in the province but actually to improve them, particularly those programs for students who need our help the most. That includes special needs students, of course, but also students who come from social or economic backgrounds that require them to have special services in schools. We'll protect those services, we'll enhance those services by using the best practices in Ontario, and that's what our intention is.

As far as visiting schools is concerned, it's my privilege, and really my pleasure, to visit a lot of schools over the course of the school year. I have been to schools in your riding, as you know, and I will be again. I think I'm attending a school this very evening in Toronto to listen to parents and the concerns of parents regarding the Education Improvement Commission. That's my intention this evening. I look forward to visiting more schools, and undoubtedly schools in your riding.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Over the past number of weeks, critics in the opposition have been making unsubstantiated accusations about our government's summer jobs program. Could you please set the record straight and tell this House and my constituents about the impacts our summer jobs program has had.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I wish to thank my colleague from Oxford for that question. Yes, I am very pleased with what our government has done on summer job programs, particularly with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. More than 2,800 students have found employment through the summer jobs program. It's an excellent investment in Ontario's youth.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): That's 2,800 fund-raisers.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I hear the honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich, who about a month ago made this statement: "The Liberal Party has always been supportive of anything you can do for young people." Well, we have, and we're proud of it.

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The members for London South and Halton Centre.

Mrs Pupatello: I rise on a point of order because my name was brought in by the minister. We don't think we agreed to hiring people for fund-raising out of the minister's office.

The Speaker: Supplementary? Supplementary?

New question, member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Premier. Last week, the mayors --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I did call "supplementary," I think three times, so it is in fact too late, but you can seek unanimous consent to get your supplementary.

The member for Oxford is seeking unanimous consent for a supplementary question. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you, Mr Minister, for the answer. I know the opposition is not fond of hearing good news, and the summer jobs is a good start. Could you tell us how the future looks for the youth thinking of entering the agrifood business?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: To the honourable member and to all of my colleagues, I want to make the statement that the enrolments in the University of Guelph and all of our agricultural colleges are up considerably this year over last year, and those students have jobs when they graduate in the agrifood sector.

Ontario led the nation last year with $5.3 billion in agrifood exports. That is something to be very proud of and a very important economic generator in our province. The agrifood sector has contributed $25 billion to our economy every fiscal year, and this is an increasing number. So let's never, in this House or anywhere else, tell anyone in Ontario that the agrifood sector is not important. It is of utmost importance.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I'll be able to put my entire question plus the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Kingston and The Islands is seeking unanimous consent to put his entire question plus the supplementary. Agreed? I heard a no.

Mr Gerretsen: All right. My question is still to the Premier. Premier, last week the mayors of Ontario's 25 largest municipalities representing over six million people met in Markham, as you probably know. They are extremely sceptical about your promises for the plans to push responsibility for social services on to the local municipalities.

As a matter of fact, Al Linwin, the mayor of St Catharines and the chair of this group, said, "We're saying to the Premier it's to the point of not only being unfair but almost dishonest to the electorate of the province." Hazel McCallion says you either know what the impact is and you're afraid to say so or you don't know and you're fumbling. She suspects the first reason, but I'm waiting for you to answer with respect to the downloading, Mr Premier.

Councils need to know exactly what they are going to budget for for next year. You said in the Common Sense Revolution that you would work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions you took would not result in increases to local property taxes. Premier, the municipalities have now been forced to hire an outside consultant to give them an independent analysis of your downloading plans. Why don't you produce the plans and show that they're revenue-neutral or else do a 180-degree turn, as you did with Bill 136, and take away the downloading of responsibility for health, social services and social housing? Why don't you do that, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We of course have done that. We have tabled all the numbers. In fact, we tabled the options. All the upper-tier numbers have been tabled to the penny. We tabled as well options and the numbers that would flow from that based upon how you go from upper tier to lower tier. Representatives of the large municipalities were at the table when all those numbers were tabled. They said: "We don't want to look at them. We don't want to be part of the decision. You make it. It's an election year, don't you know?" So we are making those decisions. They have abdicated, I would say, any decision-making on how you might move that way.

Let me assure the mayors that overall from the province's point of view it is revenue-neutral. We understand that depending on options selected from different municipalities, there will be different impacts. But I can assure them that just as Mel Lastman says, "No need for tax hikes," just as your former colleague, now running for regional chair, says, "No need for tax hikes" --

The Speaker: Thank you.

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Despite the government's turnaround on Bill 136, there's a great deal of concern that we have not seen the amendments. Until that's the case, these petitions will be coming forward. This one reads:

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will effectively suspend all labour relations rights for municipal, health and school board employees affected by provincially forced amalgamations; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will hurt average workers in every community across Ontario including nurses, teachers, firemen and police officers; and

"Whereas the Harris government's bill will decrease the quality of health care as well as the quality of education delivered in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 was designed to provide the government with sweeping powers to override long-standing labour negotiation rights for workers including the right to negotiate, the right to strike, the right to seek binding arbitration and the right to choose a bargaining unit;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support our MPP Michael Gravelle in his opposition to this legislation and join him in calling upon the Harris government to repeal Bill 136, which creates a climate of confrontation in Ontario."

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

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition signed by almost 300 people in support of Women's College Hospital. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Whereas only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Whereas women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Whereas Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"Whereas the World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"Whereas without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, women-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health, Women's College Hospital."

I agree with that petition and I have affixed my name to it as well.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 35 people. It reads as follows:

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 142,

An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes; and

"Whereas Bill 142 and its regulations will have a direct and substantial impact on the lives of many people with disabilities and their families;

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

"To urge the government of Ontario to release the proposed regulations related to Bill 142 immediately, so there can be meaningful public discussion of the changes that will result from this legislation and to ensure that Bill 142 and its regulations are subject to extensive and public hearings across Ontario so that the people who are affected by this legislation and the related regulations are given adequate opportunity to be heard."

I have signed the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only about 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to teaching, research and care dedicated to women;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as its first collaborating centre for women's health in both North and South America;

"Without a self-governing Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that is not duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the comprehensive model of women's health pioneered by Women's College Hospital through ensuring self-governance of the one hospital in Ontario dedicated to women's health."

I affix my signature to this petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition signed by 52 constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas communities strongly disagree with allowing women to go topless in public;

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

"To enact legislation to require women to wear tops in public places for the protection of our children and for public safety in general."

I will sign this so that it will be presented in the proper mode.

ABORTION

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

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

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

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

"Whereas the province of Ontario has exclusive authority to determine what service will be insured; and

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

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

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

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

This is signed by 20 residents of Brockville, SD&G and the Cornwall riding.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will effectively suspend all labour relations rights for municipal, health and school board employees affected by provincially forced amalgamations; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will hurt average workers in every community across Ontario including nurses, teachers, firemen and police officers; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 was designed to provide the government with sweeping powers to override long-standing labour negotiation rights for workers, including the right to negotiate, the right to strike, the right to seek binding arbitration and the right to choose a bargaining unit;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support our MPP Frank Miclash in his opposition to this legislation and join him in calling upon the Harris government to repeal Bill 136, which creates a climate of confrontation in Ontario."

You can be assured that I have signed this petition as well.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): A petition against the fingerprinting plan of Mike Harris.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, has proposed the fingerprinting of all Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas the fingerprinting of Ontarians was never promised in the Common Sense Revolution or in his election campaign; and

"Whereas universal fingerprinting of Ontario citizens is a direct violation of basic civil rights and fundamental rights of privacy; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is intervening and intruding into all aspects of daily life, from megacities, user fees, rent controls, and market value taxes, which were never promised in the election campaign;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to oppose Mike Harris's plan to fingerprint Ontario citizens and to respect their privacy and to stop creating a mega-government that does not respect the basic freedom and individuality of the citizens of Ontario."

This is signed by over 100 citizens of Ontario.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The TVO petition campaign calling on the government for consultation in their privatization is sweeping across the province. I have a petition here signed by the residents of Amelia Street West in Thunder Bay, sent in by Claire Cikalik, and I appreciate it. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario/TFO is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVO as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold open and honest public consultation with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVO/TFO."

I am glad to sign my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This is an extremely important petition that is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario. It deals with the draconian new rules that we have in this House. It states:

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

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I am in full agreement with that and I have endorsed it.

CREMATORIUM IN VAUGHAN

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition with respect to a crematorium that is being built in the vicinity of my riding in the city of North York. I wish to read it to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas an application has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a certificate of approval for the development of a crematorium and a columbarium at the northeast corner of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue West in the city of Vaughan; and

"Whereas the residents who live in close proximity to this proposed crematorium are extremely concerned about the harmful environmental effects resulting from the emissions to the atmosphere, seriously fear the spread of contaminants from this planned six-furnace high-rise crematorium and are alarmed about the long-term effects on their health; and

"Whereas there is a further apprehension in this high-density residential community that due to budget considerations and cutbacks, the Ministry of Environment and Energy will not take the time to effectively, openly and fairly listen to, consider and assess the community's concern on the huge ramifications;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"We call upon the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which has the primary responsibility for protecting and enhancing a healthful environment for the present and future wellbeing of the people of Ontario, to:

"(1) recognize that we, the citizens most adversely affected by this proposal, have the right to participate in government decision-making;

"(2) honour its commitment to safeguard our environment and therefore reject this proposal for a crematorium of such a large scale and literally at our doorsteps;

"(3) acknowledge that the health of thousands of residents will be at risk and thereby refuse to grant approval for this project."

I concur, and I affix my signature to it.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm proud to present a petition signed by hundreds of constituents living in west Renfrew county, which petition reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government to retain Highway 62 from Maynooth to the village of Barry's Bay as a provincial highway, as it is a significant access corridor to and from southern Ontario and is vital to the industrial and tourism sectors of the regional economy here in the Madawaska Valley, and to ensure its prominence as an access corridor on provincial and regional roadmaps. A provincial highway would allow for a consistent level of maintenance and avoid placing an increased financial burden upon local taxpayers."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition which I support wholeheartedly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO NUCLEAR AFFAIRS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for the appointment of a select committee on Ontario Hydro nuclear affairs.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): When I last intervened in this debate, I pointed out that our party would prefer that the government appoint an independent commission to look into the affairs of Ontario Hydro and to give that commission a longer time frame than is proposed in this motion. The government intends to have a select committee which will be dominated by members of its own party and to give it a very constricted time frame, which we don't think will be adequate to properly deal with the very difficult questions that face us with regard to Ontario Hydro.

The great question that lies before us is the government's white paper. The government has indicated that it intends to bring forward a response to the Macdonald commission. I suspect that that Liberal father of free trade will be quite happy, because he not only proposed open competition but a large dose of privatization, and I suspect that this government is going to do that as well. Our caucus supports competition, but only if the environment and the consumer are protected.

The kind of selloffs that I think are being contemplated by this government make even less sense now than they did a year ago, when Macdonald made his report. No one is going to buy the nuclear plants now. No investor in his or her right mind would make that kind of investment.

We call on the government to bring forward its white paper so the people of this province will have a better idea of what the government's agenda really is. We can only really evaluate the Hydro nuclear recovery plan if we know where the province is going in terms of competition and privatization. There are a number of questions that the white paper must answer and that the committee will have to consider:

What is the best way of ens