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

August 18, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L214 - Mon 18 Aug 1997 / Lun 18 Aoû 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMUNITY

LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

TOM DAVIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

BERTHA MOORE AND HENRY PRICE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

HEALTH CARE IN NIAGARA REGION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

ONTARIO HYDRO

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

ONTARIO HYDRO

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO HYDRO

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

LABOUR LEGISLATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

FIRE IN HAMILTON

PROPERTY TAXATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

PAY EQUITY

COURT RULING

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

COURT DECISION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

CASINO GAMBLING

TVONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1997

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'd like to recognize a significant event that took place over the last few days, and that was the recognition of the anniversary of 50 years of independence in India.

I think all of us recall, and certainly all of us have read about, the struggle of the freedom fighters to establish that democracy led by Mahatma Gandhi, and we all are familiar with the enormous success of that struggle. Mahatma Gandhi's legend lives on, of course. Two of the great struggles in the recent past, the civil rights movement in the US led by Martin Luther King and the struggle in South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, both follow the principles of Mahatma Gandhi.

We also on the weekend recognized the tremendous accomplishments of India. I think Canada has much to learn from India, a country with 300 languages, multireligion, and yet democracy continues to grow and to thrive there.

Over the weekend we also recognized the contribution of so many Canadians of Indian background: here in the Ontario government senior deputy ministers, but in every aspect of our life. I particularly wanted to say that I salute the committee that worked tirelessly. In our gallery are the members of that committee, led by Ajit Jain and R.K. Moorthy, as well as the rest of the committee. I wonder if the House might join in congratulating them on a fine accomplishment.

SOUTHEAST ASIAN COMMUNITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I had the pleasure of joining my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt in some of the festivities that took place over the weekend around the 50th anniversary of India's independence. I hope all members of the House will join with us in offering best wishes to the Indo-Canadian/ Pakistani-Canadian communities on this, the 50th anniversary of their independence from the British Empire after a 200-year struggle.

This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the first south Asians to Canada. Over this century the south Asian community has contributed greatly to the Canadian mosaic. No major facet of Canadian life has gone untouched. Our commercial and cultural institutions have been greatly enriched by the many talents of these communities whose multicultural, multilinguistic and multireligious heritage date back at least 5,000 years. The people of the subcontinent have also made great strides in the last 50 years. Life expectancy, literacy and per capita income have all risen significantly.

Given recent signs of resolution of conflicts between these two great countries, I have great faith that the next 50 years will be even more promising if the challenges can be faced today.

I too would like to congratulate the leaders and the organizers from the committee for putting on a wonderful celebration this weekend. Congratulations.

LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): It is with pride that I rise for the second time to once again offer congratulations to the High Park Braves, a little league baseball team. For the fourth year in a row the Braves have won the Ontario Little League championship. This team, made up entirely of 12-year-olds and with only two players returning from last year, represented Ontario at the national championships. They went through the round robin with a perfect five and zero record to advance to the finals.

While they were not victorious on this occasion, they have much to be proud of. Very few teams could even boast of making it once to the finals of the Canadian Major Little League championship, let alone four times. In the case of the High Park Braves, they won the Canadian championship on two of those occasions and advanced on behalf of Canada to the world series.

I would like to thank the parents, coaches and other volunteers who make our house leagues and rep teams across Ontario possible. These individuals give generously of their time to nourish and encourage our young people. In High Park-Swansea the strong support of our neighbourhood's many sports teams has done much more than simply organize games to the benefit of our youth; it has coalesced into a vibrant community spirit.

Once again it is my distinct honour to offer congratulations to the High Park Braves, Ontario champions in little league baseball for the fourth year in a row. If I might be so bold as to speak for all my colleagues in the House, I think I can safely say that the players, the coaches, the parents and the community are all world-class winners.

TOM DAVIES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): After 29 consecutive years in municipal politics, Ontario's longest-serving regional chair has decided to retire after this term. Tom Davies, chair of the Sudbury region, will not only be missed in the Sudbury basin, but he will be missed by politicians at all levels of government.

Being acclaimed as the chair of the Sudbury region for five consecutive terms indicates the amount of satisfaction, respect and love the people and politicians of the Sudbury region have for Tom. Tom was obsessed with improving our area's image. His main focus was always the good of the region and his main thrusts were its survival and growth. Tom believes in our youth and focused tireless energies in ensuring they had jobs in our region to return to.

Tom was, and continues to be, a mentor for all those around him. His ability to remain focused and to keep his priorities in tune with the ordinary person were two of the reasons he was so successful and so popular. For people, Tom exemplified what politics is all about. We all owe Tom a huge debt of gratitude.

To Tom, his wife, Sally, and children Craig, Ward, Susan, Gordon and Scott, thank you for your energy, your focus, your dedication and your commitment. It is now our turn to support Tom and his family. Good luck, dear friend.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today having just completed the six measly days of public hearings that this government threw out by way of public consultation on Bill 99. Shameful, disgusted outrage was certainly the attitude of the literally hundreds of people who showed up in the public galleries in every community we were in and were not allowed to speak, couldn't get on the list. In fact, there were over 1,200 requests, and we met only a mere fraction.

Finally, these people had had their fill of this arrogant government, and in Kingston the injured workers actually took over the committee hearings. Peter Boyle, the president of the Kingston and District Labour Council, placed the following resolution on the floor:

"Whereas the overwhelming majority of workers who have presented to the Ontario standing committee on resources development, which is holding public hearings on Bill 99, have testified that Bill 99 attacks injured workers in the name of greater profits and will lead to greater numbers of injuries and deaths in the workplace.... Therefore

be it resolved that the participants at the Kingston public hearings on Bill 99 call on the labour movement, the injured worker movement and all progressive organizations to continue the fight against the concepts in Bill 99. They should use their resources to fight these regressive changes on the streets, in the workplace and to build support within their communities... That fight begins here in Kingston."

That resolution was passed unanimously by the injured workers who were there, the very people this government denied the opportunity to say, "Shame on you."

BERTHA MOORE AND HENRY PRICE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise to address the House regarding two of Oshawa's most venerable citizens, who this month have celebrated their centennial birthdays.

Bertha Moore, a resident of Oshawa, celebrated her centennial birthday with friends and family on August 8. Ms Moore is a skilled artist and an active member of our community. Ms Moore has travelled extensively and is continually looking for new challenges. In recent years she has undertaken water ballet, and her competitive spirit enjoys the sound of saying "Bingo."

Henry Patton Price was born on August 12, 1897. Since coming to Canada in 1907 from Great Britain, Mr Price has contributed greatly to Canada and our community. As a signaller in the Canadian Forces during the Great War, Mr Price served with distinction in many of the war's fiercest theatres, such as Vimy Ridge and Dieppe. The signals

section in which Mr Price served won the Dominion Trophy twice during his tour. Mr Price continued to apply the determination, dedication and pride in his efforts that he achieved during his military career through the two world wars to his civilian career with Canadian Pacific Telegraph and General Motors.

These two outstanding citizens have demonstrated dedication and commitment to their families, friends, community, province and country. I am honoured to have had the opportunity to meet and speak with both of them. I would like ask all to join me in congratulating Ms Bertha Moore and Mr Henry Price on their 100 years young.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Last week the Mike Harris Health Services Restructuring Commission arrived in Ottawa and did what its flawed mandate instructed it to do: close hospitals. In the wake of the closure of the Grace Hospital and the Riverside Hospital and the downgrading of the Montfort Hospital went $60 million of the region's health care dollars and the loss of some 1,200 front-line jobs: nurses, health care providers and hospital staff.

Evidence shows that moving certain health services to bigger units ultimately increases the costs and diminishes personal care. Closing smaller hospitals is the wrong way to go. The closure of the Grace is an insult to its patient-focused care. The community outrage over its closure is understandable. While its costs are a bit higher than average for a community hospital, the Grace is really a small specialty hospital with excellent credentials that cannot be matched costwise at a bigger hospital. The Riverside is one of the most proficient hospitals in all of Canada, so if the purpose of the exercise was to improve efficiency, why close the most efficient hospital?

To add further insult to injury, this government will be forcing two more commissions, by way of Bill 136, on to the nurses, health care providers and hospital staff. Not only are you stripping the community of health care, you're stripping these workers of fairness in their workplaces.

The people of Ottawa feel betrayed by Mike Harris, and rightfully so. He has cut the heart and soul out of community hospital care in Ottawa.

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): In mid-July, the Attorney General assumed responsibility for the bail verification and supervision program. The reason given was that the program fit the mandate of the ministry, and that is true. What didn't fit was the decision to operate only programs in southern Ontario and to shut down and shut out northerners who had been helped in Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste Marie.

In Sudbury, the Elizabeth Fry Society has operated a program since 1979. It has the overwhelming support of members of the defence bar, the crown attorneys and justices of the peace. In 1996 alone, the one and a half staff interviewed and verified information for the court for over 477 individuals. This had a significant positive impact in reducing the time crown attorneys needed to review cases.

Two hundred clients were also supervised by the same staff in 1996. That's 200 people who did not cost the corrections system a cent and who, because of bail conditions, got the counselling, anger management, drug and alcohol programs they needed to avoid further confrontation with the law. All this for a grand total of $86,000 to fund the program in Sudbury.

My questions to the Attorney General are: What specific criteria were used to determine which programs would operate? Who made the decision, as it is clear no one in Sudbury was consulted. Why did you discriminate against northern Ontario and how do you justify only southerners receiving access to the program? We deserve answers to these important questions.

HEALTH CARE IN NIAGARA REGION

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Last Monday, August 11, 1997, I was pleased to attend a major health care announcement in St Catharines. Referred to as the Breakthrough Healthcare Campaign, the announcement has implications for health care providers not only in the Niagara region but across the province as well. It shows what hospital foundations, charities and dedicated individuals can do when they put their community ahead of everything else. It also shows how important it is for communities to become partners with government in spearheading innovative and breakthrough health care initiatives.

Specifically, the St Catharines General Hospital Foundation, along with foundations for the Welland County General Hospital and the Greater Niagara General Hospital, announced a capital campaign to raise a minimum of $4.5 million, $1.85 million of which they already have in signed pledges.

At the heart of this campaign is to bring an MRI to Niagara region, which I announced last year, technology to support vascular surgery, a breast screening centre and the purchase of cardiac equipment. What particularly impressed me was the way all groups were dedicated to the process of working together for the benefit of the entire community, not one specific location or one specific hospital.

I want to congratulate everyone involved in this capital campaign for doing what is best for the entire Niagara region.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator of Ontario has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office on Monday, July 21, 1997.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill Pr51,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton

Bill Pr63,

An Act respecting The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, Montreal Trust Company of Canada and Montreal Trust Company

Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting The National Ballet of Canada

Bill Pr73,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

Bill Pr74,

An Act respecting 4588 Bathurst

Bill Pr75,

An Act respecting 750 Spadina Avenue Association

Bill Pr80,

An Act respecting the Young Women's Christian Association of Niagara Falls

Bill Pr81,

An Act respecting the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto Foundation

Bill Pr82,

An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Not-For-Profit Credit Counselling Services

Bill Pr83,

An Act respecting the Municipal Law Enforcement Officers' Association (Ontario) Inc.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As we gather to continue the business of this House, I would like to bring all members up to date on some important issues.

As the Legislature gets back to work, we are reminded of what the people of Ontario have consistently asked for of their elected officials: that we work to take action on the issues that are important to them. They want to know that the government is following a plan to manage their hard-earned dollars in a way that is efficient, that is responsible and that is accountable. They want to know that the government has a plan that will protect the first-class services that we all rely on: health, education and safe communities.

I want to remind members that we are spending more money on health care than any government in the history of this province. However, what is equally important is that we are targeting those dollars to necessary, leading-edge medical services, not on bricks and mortar.

Ontarians also want to know that their government has a plan to create jobs and opportunity for all Ontarians today and certainly for their children and for their grandchildren tomorrow. We have that plan, and during the next few weeks of this session we will continue to follow that plan as we manage those changes that will benefit all Ontarians.

Jobs, growth and prosperity for our generation and for our young people have always been the top priority of this government, and it was a significant focus at the annual premiers' conference, which I had the pleasure of attending about two weeks ago.

Our government approached the conference wanting to see some real progress on two issues especially: job creation and ensuring a better future for all our children. These are the issues we have been addressing in Ontario, and we were pleased about the progress that is being made at the national level. The conference agenda was wide-ranging, but the unifying theme of premiers from east to west was our commitment to work together to strengthen our economy and build hope for the future.

There was agreement on several important topics. For example, it was agreed that a strategy should be created to address the problem of youth unemployment in this country.

Our youth are our future.

In that regard, I would like to table in this House a copy of two reports that were shared with the premiers: A Proposed Framework for the Development of a Comprehensive Youth Employment Strategy, and a second report, the Western Best Practices Report on Youth Employment. I commend these reports to all members of the Legislature.

Ontario has enjoyed three straight months of significant job growth for youth, but there is much more to be done. That is why Ontario fully supports efforts on behalf of our youth.

We also agreed that federal and provincial finance ministers should negotiate the renewal of Canada's existing financial arrangements, including equalization. Premiers of differing political parties and regional interests reached a consensus on the need for practical, down-to-earth changes that will improve the partnerships between governments on the management of vital services that we all rely on. The premiers have decided to meet again this fall in order for us to address ways of consulting Canadians to ensure a strong, surviving federation.

I would like to meet with the two opposition leaders prior to then to bring them up to date on the premiers' conference and to hear their views on consultations with Ontarians in the coming year.

Premier Roy Romanow suggests that 80% of the solution to Canadian unity issues is to improve the federation in practical, non-constitutional ways. The premiers have been doing this for two years now. We need the federal government to join us in this most important undertaking.

All these important agreements will help to ensure more efficient, more effective government. This in turn will help strengthen our federation, improve the economic climate and the conditions of every province, and build lasting jobs and prosperity for all our people.

Most premiers left the conference recognizing that we are making progress on important issues but that there is a great deal of work yet to be done as we make our way towards our common goals.

We in Ontario are well aware of the work that lies ahead.

This session will continue the work we have already begun to get Ontario on the right track again. It will be an opportunity for us to take time to talk with our partners, to listen to the input of Ontarians and to ensure that the changes we are making are fully understood by those who indeed will benefit from them.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You never listen.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The members for Cochrane South and Sudbury, please come to order.

Hon Mr Harris: The Chair of Management Board will be making a statement on the legislative plans for this session in a few moments.

As we continue to manage the changes we are making, we are already seeing some positive signs that suggest Ontario's economy is heading in the right direction. Business confidence is at an all-time record high in this decade. Ontarians have already benefited from the implementation of the first of our income tax rate cuts. Consumer confidence has risen for six straight quarters, and with three more income tax rate cuts yet to come, we expect this trend to continue. Retail sales are up almost 5% this year. New car sales in Ontario were up 16% in May, after a 32% jump in April.

This morning, I visited Canadian Thermos Products in Scarborough, hearing at first hand what increased consumer confidence means to Ontario workers on the factory floor. Manufacturing thermoses and lunchpails is a symbol of getting back to work and back to school in Ontario.

The welfare rolls have declined to their lowest levels in over five years. Minister Ecker will make a statement tomorrow to bring all members up to date on our progress on Ontario's work-for-welfare program, which is already bringing hope to thousands of Ontarians who have been caught in the cycle of welfare dependency.

Most importantly, our province is leading the nation in job creation. We've seen 124,000 net new jobs created just since March, about 56% of all new jobs in Canada. Our unemployment of 8.2% is at its lowest point in seven years. We are seeing new jobs and growth throughout the province. For example, just since the last time we met -- it doesn't seem that long ago -- Denso Manufacturing has announced that Ontario will be the site of its first Canadian plant, bringing 150 new jobs to Guelph.

In Kanata, Newbridge Networks has announced plans that it will add between 800 and 1,000 new high-tech jobs every year for the next four years. In Trenton, Heinz chose eastern Ontario over locations in the United States for its sweet goods centre, which will bring new jobs for 220 people. In North York, software maker Oasis Technology plans to hire another 50 employees in the next year.

Every one of these new jobs is among the thousands that have been created just since this House last met. These new jobs and the spinoff benefits they bring to our communities are signs of an economy that is growing, creating jobs, creating prosperity and creating hope. That will continue to be the focus of this House, as it has been for the past two years. With new jobs, new investments and new opportunities, Ontario is getting back to work. Today, so will this Legislature, as we continue to manage the changes that were set out clearly in our government's plan for Ontario.

Progress is being made, but there's a great deal of work ahead. I hope all members will join together as we take the next steps in bringing jobs and growth and opportunity for all Ontarians.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I rise today to inform the House about the government's plans for this session of the Legislature. As the Premier has said, in this working session the government will continue to work to implement a plan for managing change that is working for the people of Ontario. Much of the legislation we will consider in this session has already been introduced. There will be few surprises, but there is a great deal of work to be done.

We have returned in August to allow additional time for consultation and deliberation. We will use this time to ensure that we get the details right and that we continue our record of making progress and managing change.

Two years ago we made a commitment to the people of Ontario that we would introduce major change to make Ontario a place of prosperity and opportunity once again. We are not talking about the kind of incremental tinkering that had left us spending over $1 million an hour more than we were taking in, saddled us with a deficit of $11 billion a year, or burdened our children with a $100-billion provincial debt. We committed to make change that would secure a future full of jobs, prosperity and hope for Ontarians. We are honouring those commitments, and as the Premier has just described, there are encouraging signs of progress that our plan for our province is working.

For greater detail about the positive signs we are seeing, the government has produced an informative booklet, Making Progress, Managing Change: A Report to Ontario Taxpayers, the details of the progress Ontario has made as we work towards our common goal. I would like to remind every member to encourage their constituents to call Publications Ontario at 1-800-668-9938, or in Toronto 416-326-5300. I would also like to invite all members to read each ministry's business plan for valuable information on the new, efficient, accountable manner in which the government now operates. All plans are available on the government of Ontario's World Wide Web site, under "What's New?"

The government recognizes that making change is never easy. By following a detailed plan for prosperity, we are making progress and managing the change that Ontarians asked us to make. We will continue to follow a step-by-step plan to create jobs and investment, protect first-class core services, end the cycle of welfare dependency and restore faith in opportunity and hope for the future in every, single Ontarian.

That will be the substance of this session of the Legislature.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Last week the Ontario Hydro board received the independent integrated performance assessment. This was a comprehensive eight-month review of Ontario Hydro's nuclear operations. It was carried out by a team of seven independent nuclear experts specifically brought in to review Hydro's nuclear options. Unlike any previous government-appointed chair, Bill Farlinger has initiated unprecedented steps to ensure a more open, accountable process for Ontario Hydro and the public of Ontario.

While the recent reports of Hydro's mismanagement are not pleasant, we cannot ignore the problem. We welcome the fact that for the first time in recent memory Ontario Hydro's problems are on the table and will be dealt with in an open and transparent manner.

The report was highly critical of Hydro's management, workers and processes with regard to the operation of their nuclear facilities. However, despite the shortcomings, the assessment did state that Hydro's nuclear reactors are being operated safely. The report rates Ontario Hydro's overall nuclear operations as minimally acceptable relative to superior industry standards. This is not acceptable to our government, and immediate management attention is required by Ontario Hydro.

As you are all aware, as a result of this report, Ontario Hydro's president and CEO, Dr Allan Kupcis, recognizing his ultimate responsibility for the operations, has resigned.

Upon receipt of the report, I immediately contacted the Atomic Energy Control Board, the regulatory body responsible for the safety and licensing of operations of nuclear facilities, and asked them to give priority attention for review and expert comment with regard to the nuclear safety of our hydro plants. The president of AECB has responded and assured me that they are undertaking a review of the report. They also indicated that the continued operation of Ontario Hydro nuclear reactors does not constitute an unacceptable risk to health, public safety and the environment.

Notwithstanding this, in light of the concerns and issues raised by the IIPA -- that is, the report -- this government believes it is essential to have a legislative committee process to review the most effective means of addressing these issues. We are fully in favour of a legislative process where MPPs and the public have a better understanding of the issues raised and their resolution.

I invite my fellow colleagues and critics, particularly those former critics and ministers of energy who are still members of this House and who have expertise with respect to Ontario Hydro, to consult with me on the issues and to help determine the best process to serve the public of Ontario.

I want to use that opportunity to discuss the issues of nuclear safety, Ontario Hydro's nuclear recovery strategy and the management protocols within Ontario Hydro. Again, let me reiterate that our government's top priority is the safety and reliability of Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities.

The Speaker: Responses?

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to respond to the Premier's statement. Premier, my caucus and I are delighted to be back here and to get back to work as well, but from a different perspective from the one you obviously hold.

I took some time this summer to travel a bit of the province and visited a number of ridings and a number of communities, including your own. I want to tell you about some of the things I heard, and they don't in any way reflect the mood you have in this statement.

People told me that they were very concerned about the direction health care is taking in Ontario. They told me they were very concerned about the fact that you are proceeding with a plan to close hospitals. They understand very well that you promised specifically that you wouldn't close any hospitals. They are concerned about the fact that, notwithstanding the hospital closure debate, you are laying off close to 15,000 nurses in Ontario hospitals. They are worried about whether or not they are going to be able to get treatment for their kids, treatment for themselves or treatment for their parents should the need arise.

They are very concerned about education in Ontario. They are concerned by the fact that you have withdrawn some $530 million in funding to date from primary and secondary education. They are concerned by the fact that as we prepare ourselves for a knowledge-based global economy, as we are on the cusp of the 21st century, this is a government that's eliminating junior kindergarten, this is a government that's cut funding by 16% to post-secondary education. We are now the lowest funder per capita in Canada.

Premier, when you tell us that our youth are our future, clearly your actions don't reflect your words. We used to fund $59 million for summer employment programs for our youth. This year it was $37 million. One in five children in Ontario are growing up behind the eight ball, either in poverty, abuse or neglect, and what did you do in those circumstances? You cut funding to children's aid societies by $17 million. That has resulted in the loss of 343 case workers. This at a time when we all know that the incidence of reported abuse in homes has doubled in the last five years.

We understand the pattern that is emerging all too well. In a Mike Harris Ontario, clearly bigger is going to be better: We are going to have fewer, larger school boards, we're going to have fewer, larger classrooms, we're going to have fewer, larger hospitals, we're going to have fewer, larger communities.

Institutions and systems and wealth obviously count for more than people in your Ontario. It's perfectly clear, and the people of Ontario now well understand this. Notwithstanding this statement of yours today that would tell us that all is well in the state of Denmark, it is clear that in your Ontario, you understand the price of everything and the value of nothing.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to respond on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Energy.

We welcome the government's intention to strike a legislative examination into the matters of Ontario Hydro that have been in the news recently. My colleagues and I would recommend that we model that inquiry on the basis of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs which this Legislature had in place 15 years ago. We would obviously expect that when that select committee on Hydro affairs is constituted, it will have two or three key areas of responsibility.

First and foremost, the committee and the province are entitled to know, what is the Hydro and energy policy of the Harris government? Two years after the election of this government, the people of Ontario have no idea whatsoever as to what the Hydro and electricity policy and the energy policy of the Harris government is. So first and foremost, the time has come for Mr Sterling and his friend Mr Harris to put before the people their Hydro and energy policy.

Second, clearly the people of Ontario are entitled to some accountability and some answers for the scandalous behaviour that was highlighted last week in the study to which the minister made reference, a study which highlights criticisms that have been made by the federal regulator over the last two or three years. I don't know where Mr Farlinger has been when the AECB has said clearly many of those things in the last two or three years.

The government talks about transparency, openness and accountability. I have one specific suggestion in that connection today. You, Mr Premier, could today table the letter of resignation of Dr Allan Kupcis before this Legislature just to see what the former president has had to say about the circumstances giving rise to his alleged resignation.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to respond first of all to the Premier's statement, because there are a number of remarkable things that the Premier says in his statement.

He says that Ontario is spending more on health care than ever before. Premier, if you examine the estimates, what turns out to be true is that your government is spending more on laying off health care workers and nurses than ever before. That's where the expenditure increase is coming in: the cost of laying off people who work in the health care system. And your government is spending more on the cost of closing hospitals than ever before. That's where the big new expenditures in the health care system are coming under your government.

Don't try to take credit for a better health care system, because it's not a better health care system. There are more people on waiting lists. There are more people who are being told when they go to hospital, "Please bring a family member with you because we don't have the nursing staff any longer to look after you." You have to bring someone to the hospital with you to take care of you. There are more people waiting for home care, more people waiting for other kinds of care outside the hospital system than ever before. So don't try to take credit for an improving system, Premier. It's getting worse out there, far worse, and everybody across Ontario, from community to community, knows it.

You also said something else that has to be examined. You want to somehow try to take credit for youth job creation. I have to tell you, the real youth unemployment numbers out there are worse than ever. That has happened under your government's supervision. In fact, it has happened, 100,000 more youth unemployed, as a direct result of your government, because one of the things your government did, and you've done it consistently over the last two years, was to go about wiping out youth employment programs for the summer.

You've gone about it systematically: for example, things like Jobs Ontario Summer Employment, gone; the educational leadership program, gone; the student exchange program, gone; the Ministry of Natural Resources Environmental Youth Corps, cut dramatically; the Summer Experience program, cut dramatically. All of that under your government.

Premier, don't try to take credit for greater youth employment. The fact is, there are more youth unemployed and your government has had a direct role in leading to more youth being unemployed.

Then there's the issue of children, and I want to repeat some of the things that have been said already. Your government is undermining child care. Child care spaces have been wiped out under your government. Early childhood education is clearly not a priority for your government. Clearly, more children are living in poverty.

You like to go about the province crowing about your cuts to social assistance, but, Premier, the reality is that 50% of the recipients of social assistance in this province are children. In fact what you do is you go about the province crowing that you have been able to cut the resources, the income of children. That's what you've done, and the fact that there are more children living in poverty, the fact that there are more children at risk, the fact that there are more children out there who are in very difficult circumstances, is a direct result of the actions of your government. Anybody who takes 30 seconds to look at the issues comes to that conclusion.

I also want to note: Please don't try to take credit for the fact the American economy is doing well. Every economist who comments on the economy says the American economy is doing well; 80% of Ontario's exports go to the US economy and many of them say very directly, "God, we hope the US economy continues to perform well." That's what they're saying.

Premier, as you go about beating up on teachers, as you go about beating up on health care workers, as you go about beating up on municipal workers and trying to shove more and more of the negative impact of your government down on to municipalities, don't try to take credit for the US economy and whatever bubbling over it's had in Ontario. Your government has had some very negative effects on the Ontario economy, and people note that.

Finally, just a word to the Minister of Energy: In the first two years of your government, your administration talked only about the privatization of Hydro. You didn't spend any time. The Macdonald commission was all about the privatization of Hydro. That's your government's agenda and when you did that you missed --

The Speaker: Member of the third party, order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. You made a very clear and explicit promise in the 1995 election campaign. You said, and I quote directly, "Certainly, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." To date you have closed down 22 hospitals; you've shut thousands of beds and laid off thousands of nurses. Basic nursing care is now at risk in Ontario as a direct result of what you're doing to health care.

The net result is that there are a growing number of patients who are going to find less room in our hospitals; they are going to be discharged sicker and quicker. You can tell us you're spending more money, but nobody believes that your actions have resulted in an improvement in health care in Ontario. In fact, you are frightening Ontarians when it comes to health care.

Premier, it's never too late. Will you now agree to disband your commission, pull the plug on it, honour your promise and not close hospitals in Ontario?

Interjections.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Health will be able to follow up with a number of details, but before I refer any supplementaries to the Minister of Health, let me ignore the raucous interjections and say welcome back to all of those who can't get on question period but would like to yell anyway.

Let me say very directly that during the debate, when the NDP and the Liberals talked about their plans to close hospitals, we were very clear. We did not have a plan to close hospitals. What we did have for health care was this commitment: that any savings we found in the health care system would be reinvested, and that is exactly what we're doing.

Mr McGuinty: Nobody buys that, Premier. Go outside this building and talk to Ontarians. Stay away from the golf courses for a while and talk to Ontarians. They're going to tell you that they're very concerned about what's going on in health care in Ontario today.

Let me give you just one little example of your failure to recognize some of the excellence that is already out there, because it seems to me that when it comes to health care we ought to find it and reward it when it comes to excellence in terms of delivery of health care. I'm talking about Women's College Hospital. You've got some time tomorrow afternoon, Premier; I've checked your schedule. I've made an appointment for myself to tour the facilities and to find out what precisely is at risk here as you proceed with your plan to close it.

I have a very simple question for you: Will you accompany me, Premier, tomorrow when we visit, you and I together, the Women's College Hospital so you can gain a better understanding of what's at risk here?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the question and I appreciate the offer, but I do have other plans for tomorrow. I don't want to interrupt any of your photo ops at Women's College Hospital. So you play politics and we'll continue with our plan to deliver first-class, 21st-century quality health care to Ontarians.

Mr McGuinty: If you took advantage of that opportunity, you would never, ever again call the Women's College Hospital "a bunch of dingy old buildings." Surely you recognize that one of the big reasons you're sitting in that chair today is because you made a promise in the last election not to close hospitals. You've broken that promise. You have created this fiction called the hospital restructuring commission that somehow is supposed to relieve you, absolve you of any responsibility when it comes to hospital closures. You should understand that people see through that. That is perfectly transparent. Your fingerprints are going to be all over the closed hospital doors of this province.

Again, it's never too late. Tell the commission to set aside their work; now assume your responsibility and honour your promise. I want you to stand up now, honour that promise and tell us you're not going to proceed with hospital closures.

Hon Mr Harris: We have more than honoured our commitment, our promise in the campaign that while others had plans and the NDP acknowledged they had a look and I think the Liberal leader acknowledged she might close hospitals, we said: "That's not our plan. Our plans are that whatever savings we can -- "

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: We have fully honoured our commitment to reinvest any savings that could be found in the health care systems. In fact, we have more than honoured that commitment.

I would ask the leader of the Liberal Party to explain this quote from September 22, 1996: "I am convinced there is enough money in the health care system. I don't think we're spending it as effectively as we can." Perhaps as we make these new investments, you can tell us what you plan to cut to support all the spending you're calling for us.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Premier. Last week we received a very, very disturbing report on the state of affairs at Ontario Hydro. The report was so damning that it forced the closing of seven nuclear generators. That's over one third of the nuclear generation capacity at Ontario Hydro. We got the news today that you're going to give us a legislative committee, as we have been asking for, but obviously that is not good enough here. You understand, I'm sure, that there is much at stake here. We're talking about billions of dollars; we're talking about our economy, our environment, our competitiveness, our credit rating.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to answer the question raised by my critic a few short moments ago. We need to know now precisely what you're planning to do. How are you and your minister going to deal with that report and what specifically are your plans for the future of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Eight months ago, Mr Farlinger, the chairman of the board of Ontario Hydro, went public with this statement: "There are problems with the management of Ontario's nuclear facilities. They are of an extent that we do not believe there are the expertise and the resources within Hydro to identify them or bring forward a plan to correct them." Eight months ago he sought approval from cabinet and the minister to go to the best in the world, to bring in an outside report, to lay out before us what is the state and what needs to be done to do it.

I just want to say this: This is a historic move by the chairman of Hydro and by the minister responsible. Had that been done 15 years ago, or 12 years ago, or 10 years ago, or eight years ago, or three years ago, we would not be in the mess that we're in today. But it has been done. We have made it --

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

Mr McGuinty: The Premier talks about historic developments. Let me tell you about a real historic development in the province of Ontario. You are now about to allow the startup of fossil-fuel generating capacity which is going to be the equivalent of seven million cars. There are only five million cars on Ontario roads today. You're going to add to that the equivalent of seven million cars. Your minister has already told us that 1,800 Ontarians annually die premature deaths because of poor air quality. Because you have been asleep at the switch, we are now faced with this disastrous consequence.

We're going to have the equivalent of seven million new cars adding air pollution to the air we breathe in Ontario.

Premier, will you admit that your cuts to the Ministry of Environment have now put us behind the eight ball? You should have anticipated this. You didn't anticipate it. Tell us now, what are you going to do to protect Ontarians from the fact that we're going to have to breathe the equivalent of an additional seven million automobiles' exhaust in our air in Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm sure the minister can respond.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The fact of the matter is that the estimate which the Leader of the Opposition puts forward was the figure which Greenpeace threw out, which is not accurate. Secondly, if in fact the power is replaced by oil-fired generating stations, Ontario Hydro will still live within the regulated limits set by previous governments for emissions.

Mr McGuinty: That's not good enough, Minister. You're telling us now that we should somehow take solace in knowing that it's not really going to be the equivalent of seven million cars; it may only be six million or possibly as low as five million. I would think that one of the things this government ought to do would be to cause no harm.

You talk to some parents who have kids who are asthmatic, talk to some children who have elderly parents who have breathing problems, and they're going to want to know what you're going to do. What are you going to do now to ensure that this new pollution, tonnes and tonnes -- there are going to be thousands of tonnes of additional pollution added to our air. That is going to cause smog, it's going to contribute to global warming, it's going to contribute to acid rain. They want to know, what are you going to do to protect them? I want you to stand up now and tell us what you're going to do on that front.

Hon Mr Sterling: Because of the problems which were identified by this particular report that we mentioned earlier, I believe the safety of our nuclear reactors is our primary concern at this time. We are, as we have demonstrated in this government, very concerned about our air quality. We are working with a number of other jurisdictions to ensure that our air quality is improving. We in this government have focused like no other government has done on air quality standards. There have been 20 years of neglect, according to the Provincial Auditor, with regard to air quality standards.

We are the first government to set a particulate standard in this province. We lowered the volatility gasoline pressure this summer to improve air quality in Ontario, the first government to do that in this province.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: We are taking a number of steps to improve air quality. It is unfortunate that the fallout of this particular incident will put some dent in that --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines, you must withdraw. That last comment was completely --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I simply said it was untrue.

The Speaker: I know. That's the one you have to withdraw.

Mr Bradley: It is untrue, though.

The Speaker: You're not going to get a second chance. You must withdraw.

Mr Bradley: Well, I'll withdraw it, but --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier, and it concerns Ontario Hydro. When there have been problems at Hydro, when there have been obvious concerns at Hydro, can you tell us why the first thing your government did when you assumed power was not to deal with the issues at Hydro but to appoint the Macdonald commission to do a report on the privatization of Hydro? Can you tell us why you have been so consumed with the question of privatizing Hydro, selling it off, rather than dealing with the real issues at Hydro?

Hon Mr Harris: The Macdonald commission had nothing to do with privatizing; it had everything to do with competition and transparency and openness, which is one of the problems we're seeing that has come today, particularly by your government's -- I don't know whether "coverup" is too strong a word, but certainly not transparency, throughout your tenure.

The second thing, as I've already indicated, is thank goodness we had a chair of Hydro and we had a minister who were prepared to go to the best in the world to bring exposure and transparency and make public what has been going on at Ontario Hydro. I would say this: This is the beginning of finding professional and proper solutions to the problems at Hydro instead of letting them deteriorate like your government did for five years.

Mr Hampton: This is an interesting rewrite of history the Premier is trying. I remember being part of a cabinet that shut down 12 nuclear reactors because we had some concerns about them. I was part of a government that declared a moratorium on future nuclear development, a government that shut down Bruce A because we had concerns about its safety, a government that approved a $600-million maintenance program at Pickering. That's what I was part of, Premier.

The only thing we have seen from your government in the first two years was the Macdonald report on privatization, and your golfing buddy, the chair of Hydro, running around trying to promote the privatization of Hydro.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: I put the question to you again. I was part of a government that recognized there were some problems at Hydro and took some steps to deal with some of those problems. The only thing we've seen from your government over the last two years is your attempt to privatize Hydro. The current chairman has been your primary spokesman, and the Macdonald report was all about --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: You, sir, were part of a government that ruined this province, and we're fixing it.

Mr Hampton: I was part of a government that, yes, had to deal with what was left over from Brian Mulroney. I was part of a government that had to deal with the massive downloading --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock. Supplementary?

Mr Hampton: I was part of a government that had to deal with the immediate impacts of free trade, where Canada lost 600,000 full-time jobs and Ontario lost 400,000 full-time jobs. We dealt with that. We in fact had some of the best investments.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Dufferin-Peel, Minister, come to order please. Thank you.

Mr Hampton: During our term on watch, we had the largest reinvestment in the auto industry ever in Ontario's history, and we repositioned a virtual three quarters of the pulp and paper industry. We actually gained back 400,000 full-time jobs.

But, Premier, that's not the issue here. The issue is this: Ontario Hydro is a mess and for the last two years, instead of focusing on the real issues of Ontario Hydro, your government has ignored those issues. You spend all your time commissioning reports and having the chair of Hydro run around North America trying to privatize Hydro.

I go back to my original question. Why has your government been so preoccupied with the privatization of Hydro, selling it off to your corporate friends? Why have you been ignoring the real problems that exist at Hydro until now?

Hon Mr Harris: Mr Farlinger actually, as I recall, has been one who was criticized for being slow in dealing with privatization. He did so because the issue for him was not privatization. The issue for him was competition, transparency, expertise, professionalism in running the generation and the distribution of energy in this province. I can tell you that it was because of him, this government, the cabinet and the Minister of Energy that this report was commissioned, independent of Hydro, some eight to nine months ago, and I say thank goodness you guys were not in the government any longer to keep covering up the problem.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, if you want to start casting about allegations of coverups, I have a question for you. It concerns Ipperwash. You and your senior ministers have said over and over again in this Legislature that your government gave no direction to the OPP to confront the occupiers at Ipperwash Park. I can quote you, May 29, 1996: "There was absolutely no direction, as there ought not to be, from me or any of my staff to the OPP." That's a quote of you.

We now know through handwritten minutes taken at an interministerial committee meeting, obtained through freedom of information, that your senior aide, Deb Hutton, did give clear direction from you to the OPP. Your executive assistant, Deb Hutton, is quoted as saying: "Premier last night -- OPP only, maybe MNR, out of the park only -- nothing else," and she adds later on in the meeting, "Government must be seen as acting."

Premier, either you didn't know what your senior staff person was doing and saying on your behalf at that meeting or you gave the direction to the OPP via your staff member, despite what you have been claiming in this House for over a year. You have promised that at the right time, in the right way, the questions will be answered. It's time now to answer the questions around Ipperwash. We want a public inquiry now. What is your answer?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Attorney General will have some things to say on this matter, but let me confirm to you that the minutes that were released by the interministerial committee confirm exactly, 100%, everything that I have said on this issue. The minutes themselves that you are in receipt of -- they have been made public now so I believe I can quote from them -- say on page 5:

The Ministry of Natural Resources: "The minister wants to act as quickly as possible to avoid further damage, to curtail any escalation of the situation." This is the day of the unfortunate incident which took place later that evening.

The Ministry of the Attorney General: "The minister agrees that application will be made for an injunction."

The representative for the Solicitor General: "As a matter of protocol, the SGC does not involve itself in the day-to-day operations of the OPP. The OPP will exercise its discretion regarding how to proceed in removing the Stony Pointers from the park."

I tell you we've been open; we've been public. We felt this was an illegal occupation, according to the press release we put out at the time, and we asked the OPP to deal with it --

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Premier, come to order, please.

Mr Hampton: Let me recite a bit of the history. Occupations of Ipperwash park were not new; occupations of Ipperwash park have happened by the same native people in the past. They would wait until the park was closed in the fall, and as a means of registering their claim, registering their protest, they would occupy the park after it was closed.

The position of the OPP in the past was always: "Don't escalate the issue. This is a peaceful protest. Don't do anything to raise conflict or raise controversy." That was the position of the OPP, but two months after you became the government, that policy changed.

I say again to the Premier, it's very clear why that policy was changed. It is in the words and in the notes that were taken of the words that Deb Hutton spoke: "Premier last night -- OPP only -- out of the park, nothing else...must be seen as acting."

Do you realize the impact that direction would have on officials? Do you realize --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Harris: The Attorney General may have something to add. I've told you everything we know.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The information that has been released simply confirms what we've been saying all along. We indicated there would be no negotiations on substantive issues of concern to the occupiers while an occupation was going on.

Second, we made it very clear, and the notes confirm this, that the issue of the occupation was something that was being dealt with by the OPP, who are responsible for public safety and security. The notes are quite clear that the only step that was taken by the government was taken by me, and that was to obtain a civil injunction.

Mr Hampton: I marvel at the Attorney General's attempt to cover the trail for the Premier. Premier, I want to quote for you from a former civil servant, someone who has left the Ontario civil service. He was at that meeting. This is what he said. This was in the Kingston Whig-Standard:

"`The bureaucrats there were really shocked with what Deb Hutton told them, because that is not the way they did things,' said the official." When he says that's not the way they did things, he's talking about the way these meetings were conducted in the past, before your government took over. "`The general impression was that the Premier wanted to have the protesters out of the park as soon as possible. That was very clearly the message. It was an expression of what he wanted. Certainly everything she said she implied was coming directly from him,'" the Premier.

My point is simply that it's very clear what the words are: "want the protesters out of the park immediately. Government must be seen as taking action" --

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

Mr Hampton: Premier, the next day one of them died. We want a public inquiry --

The Speaker: Come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harnick: The commissioner of the OPP was very candid and very clear. He stated in a release that he issued, "I am the commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police and I do not take tactical or operational direction from the government." He went on to say: "We keep officials apprised of policing situations in a broad framework. That, however, does not include sharing details of operational plans beforehand."

Quite simply, that comment from the OPP commissioner is borne out in all the documents that have been turned over. There was only one tactical approach that the government took, and that was to obtain a civil injunction.

The Speaker: New question, official opposition, member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a question to the Premier on the Ipperwash affair to find out who made the key decision. The police, the OPP, had a detailed plan. It was called Project Maple. It said the objective was to "contain and negotiate a peaceful solution." This is their own document. It goes on to point out that they set up three separate negotiating teams, three separate teams so two of them could negotiate: one negotiates 12 hours, the next 12 hours and one relief team. That was the OPP plan to negotiate a peaceful settlement to this.

We then find that the government made a different decision. The government imposed a condition on the OPP. It was noted that there would be no negotiations with the Stony Pointers. You, Premier, and the government made that key decision. The OPP wanted to negotiate, they set up three teams, they were ready to do it 24 hours a day and you said, "There will be no negotiations." Why did you determine there would be no negotiations with the Stony Pointers?

Hon Mr Harris: I determined nothing. I gave no direction. I gave no influence on it. We left that entirely to the OPP. I assumed there would be negotiations.

Mr Phillips: Now we are at the heart of the matter. The Premier is saying it was his understanding there would be negotiations. The government represented by this interministerial committee with your executive assistant decided on a different course. One of two things has happened. You said, "Proceed with the negotiations," and they disregarded your instructions, or there has been some miscommunication between you and the public on this matter and in fact you were a party to the decision for no negotiations. Can you confirm today that it was your instructions that negotiations should be proceeding as per the OPP plan?

Hon Mr Harris: I gave no directions. I gave no directions to the OPP. I left it to the OPP how they were to proceed and the interministerial committee was there. I've been very up front about that. I've been very clear --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: -- the only direction that the government took in any of this matter was to say what we said publicly at the time, and it's now a matter of public record. We felt there was an illegal occupation. The Ministry of Natural Resources wanted its park back as soon as possible and we left it to the OPP as to how to proceed. The only action we took -- and the minutes of the day are very clear -- is that we sought a civil injunction. That's the action we took and everything else is a matter of public record.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Premier. As you know by now, the men and women who work in our schools, fire stations, city hall, police officers on the street, in fact all the public sector workers in Ontario are extremely worried about your Bill 136 and the powers that you're going to give to your special handpicked commission. This is of course your way of making sure that ordinary workers and their families pay the price for your $1-billion municipal download.

Last month more than 2,400 workers marched here to Queen's Park for the first-ever special Ontario Federation of Labour emergency convention to try to present you with a proclamation. You weren't here to receive it and neither were any of your representatives, so I have it here for you and I'll present it to you on their behalf.

The workers don't want to strike. They don't want a confrontation. They want an opportunity to meet with you and talk about the alternatives to your dictatorial, draconian, confrontational Bill 136. Will you stand in your place today and say that you're going to avoid that kind of chaos and that you will meet with those workers' representatives?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Of course. So will the Minister of Labour, so will the cabinet and so will I. We've said very publicly we'd like to meet to resolve the issues so we can get from point A to point B as quickly as possible: point A, an $11-billion deficit and bankruptcy; point B, a balanced budget and a thriving, prosperous Ontario with jobs and opportunity for everybody. Whenever anybody wants to meet with me to discuss that, I'm ready.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We'll recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 1450 to 1506.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Christopherson: Premier, what we've seen here today is exactly what's going to happen in community after community after community all across Ontario, and you're responsible. You can say you're going to set up an arm's-length commission, as you've done in many other cases, but the people aren't fooled. You're responsible for every decision made by those commissioners against workers and their collective rights. You're going to cause the chaos that's happening in our communities, and it's directly related to your tax cut and your downloading on to municipalities.

You've said here today that you're prepared to meet with workers and their representatives. What they want you to do is treat them with the same respect and decency and process you gave to doctors. You've said you'd put that offer on the table and you'd meet with workers. Premier, I want you to stand in your place now and honour that commitment. Tell workers that you will meet with them and that you will have your office call the office of Gord Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, and put the offer on the table that you gave to doctors. Honour your commitment, Premier. Do it now.

Hon Mr Harris: Okay.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. On August 5 the minister announced the Ontario social assistance caseload had declined by 210,000 recipients in two years of reform by this government.

Applause.

Mr Hudak: Certainly, by the applause on this side of the House, a recognition that this is substantial progress on behalf of taxpayers, on behalf of recipients across Ontario.

In discussions with those receiving social assistance in Niagara South this summer, what they asked for is an opportunity to work, to get back into the workforce and contribute to the communities in which they live. My question to the minister is, how have the government's reforms to date on social assistance helped those people get back into the workforce?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank my honourable colleague from Niagara South for the question. We have indeed been encouraged by the number of individuals who have been able to leave welfare, to go back into the workforce. That's where most of them want to be and that's the goal of our Ontario Works program, our work-for-welfare program that we are rolling out across the province.

I'm pleased to report that over 35 communities are now involved in workfare. There have been some 36,000 individuals who are participating or have participated in the various components, and we're very pleased with the feedback we've heard from them, both the participants and also the feedback from those administrators and agencies that are involved. We look forward to continuing this progress across the province.

Mr Hudak: I know these are very encouraging results on behalf of taxpayers and social assistance recipients, the early success of Ontario Works and, importantly, 210,000 fewer people receiving benefits.

Also, to the minister, a question on behalf of those who are paying the bills -- the farmers, teachers, truck drivers and those who pump the gas at gas stations, who have every right to expect that the hard-earned tax dollars they pass on to the government are administered efficiently and truly help those who need assistance: How have the taxpayers and the communities in which they live benefited from two years of progress on welfare reform?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Actually, there have been two benefits. There has been the personal benefit, if you will, of those individuals who no longer have to rely on welfare who are better off and where families are better off because they are back in the workforce. Second, it is of benefit to the taxpayers who are paying for the system, and we have saved $1.3 billion in this province in the last two years. That is a major payback for those taxpayers and we will anticipate future savings as our reforms continue.

We have an obligation not only to the people who are on welfare to give them the tools and the encouragement to get off, but we also owe it to the taxpayers who pay for the system to make sure their money is being well used. I think when most of the taxpayers in this province look at the savings they've had in their community, they will think this program is working and they will believe this government is doing what it said it would do.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is to the Minister of Health. I want to talk to you about your culpability. Particularly in the course of this summer, your hand in helping to ruin public services in this province has been well established, particularly the operations of hospitals. We've seen what you want to do to Women's College and Wellesley, Riverside and Montfort, and how you're gutting some of the best services that are provided.

That's not enough, apparently. Your support for Bill 136 and your colleagues' adding police officers and municipal workers and firefighters and those who are teachers in schools to the list is just a reflection of how you want to completely devastate the public service ethic in this province.

Minister, will you agree to change at least your support of taking away not just jobs from teachers, of ruining their working conditions, of making them deal with unbelievable situations in which they're supposed to provide care -- now you want to take away their ability to bargain properly with their employers, to take it all away from the support workers who are needed in those hospitals. Isn't firing them enough? Won't you stand down from these unfair labour rules?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member couldn't be more wrong, and it's unfortunate that he does such fearmongering on such a sensitive issue.

The health care sector is restructuring, and part of the responsibility of all of us is to ensure that happens smoothly, that there are no gaps in services for patients. There is nothing in Bill 136 that takes away any of the existing rights of employees. In fact, it facilitates a faster process, and if the parties on a volunteer basis come to a conclusion in the process at any time, it will be their conclusion and their process, including the right to arbitration.

You're talking about a sector that does not have the right to strike; you're talking about a sector that all parties agree needs to be restructured. A responsible government will provide the legislative basis to make sure that happens, because our goal in all of this restructuring is to put the patients first, to increase the services.

There are no cuts in services in the industry restructuring. There will be more jobs for more nurses. There will be more jobs for more hospital workers in the long run as we meet the needs of a growing and aging population. Bill 136 and the new labour laws help us do that.

Mr Kennedy: I'm certain that not a nurse in this province has been given an ounce of comfort by this minister's total lack of recognition of what they're going through and how Bill 136 is only adding to the anxiety they feel for themselves and for their patients.

The bad news for you and for your colleagues is that people in the coffee shops of this province are starting to get it. They understand that you don't care one whit about making sure that nurses have a good working environment. It doesn't bother you that you're laying off thousands of other workers, that people are left alone in their rooms, that this past weekend in Northwestern Hospital a five-year-old was stuffed in a geriatric ward with all kinds of infections after he had a tonsillectomy because you cut the money.

Minister, in this legislation it says, "...taking due account of how much money hospitals have." They don't have the money because you won't give it to them. Now you want it both ways.

Will you at least show some decency, stand down from your support of Bill 136 and tell at least the hospital unions you've put under so much pressure they'll be able to negotiate in good faith and not see this added to the list of woes you've generated?

Hon Mr Wilson: Let's see what nurses have actually said about hospital restructuring. On November 20, 1996, Jane Cornelius, the former president of the Ontario Nurses' Association, said, "The health care restructuring commission is creating a system that will get rid of the waste, get rid of the duplication and will actually preserve jobs." She said about Dr Duncan Sinclair, the chair of the commission, that he is an ally for nurses and that there's a lot of commonality of thinking about how hospitals should be run.

The nurses themselves only last January took out ads in the major daily newspapers in Toronto, saying, "There's 30% waste and duplication and too much administration in the hospital system."

But I'd like to ask the honourable member, if we look at the Ottawa area, something extremely important to his leader, for example: What are you opposed to in restructuring there, when at the end of the day there'll be more services; at the end of the day there'll be six more operating rooms, 15 new intensive care unit beds, two new MRIs, 2,600 new long-term-care spaces including 1,016 new nursing home beds, 44 more rehabilitation beds and 143 new --

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

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Energy. There's a report in today's Hamilton Spectator by Sharon Boase that says: "While helping battle the five-day blaze last month" -- referring to the Plastimet fire -- "George Cooke fell face first into a `toxic lake' of chemicals and heavy metals. He was headed for a well-deserved cup of coffee but ended up swallowing a mouthful of toxic swill that also got into his eyes, nose and ears."

Minister, you will know that on July 22 I held a news conference to call on you and this government to hold a public inquest. The firefighters association that represents firefighter Cooke was a part of that news conference, as was Greenpeace, CUPE, OPSEU and resident representatives Charlotte Fournier and Ann Gallagher. Your own Premier said on that day: "I think they" -- residents -- "should be getting answers to more questions and we want answers too.... I can assure the public that our concern is the same."

Will you offer the citizens of my community the public inquest that they need and deserve?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I believe the Solicitor General would be the proper minister to report to you. I will take that on notice for the minister and have him get back to you.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I ask the minister if he'd like to refer it now to the Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Sterling: I refer the question with regard to the Plastimet fire and whether or not an inquiry should be held --

The Speaker: You can either answer it or refer it.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I apologize. I was in another conversation in the chamber and didn't hear the question, as it wasn't directed to me. I gather it had something to do with a public inquest or inquiry; I'm not sure which term the member used. But certainly an inquest would not be appropriate, as he appreciates as a former officeholder in the capacity I now serve in.

With respect to an inquiry, I'm not sure what he's driving at. We should have, any day now, a full report from the fire marshal's office with respect to the circumstances surrounding the fire. We'll have a better opportunity to gauge the need for further investigation following receipt of that report, which hopefully we will have this week.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I want somebody from this government today to take responsibility for something. Let's not quibble with words here. What the member for Hamilton Centre is asking for is a public inquiry into what happened there. The MOEE budget has been cut by 35% and you have laid off more than 750 staff. These cuts seriously hampered the time it took to respond to the Plastimet fire.

We need a public inquiry to look into the effects of your cuts on the lack of coordinated response to the fire, to the long-term health effects of the release of toxic chemicals that entered the groundwater in Hamilton, that polluted the air throughout Hamilton, and we need to know that it won't happen again. Your cuts and your downsizing are having an effect on the environment in this province.

Minister, I ask you, will you hold a public inquiry so we can make sure that this is corrected and won't happen again?

Hon Mr Runciman: I indicated earlier that we were expecting a report this week from the Ontario fire marshal and I think we'll gauge further reactions on the part of this government when we receive that report.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I rise to respond to a question put by the leader of the third party on July 3. The member made allegations about the Ministry of Transportation and a private contractor.

First, I would like to address the short-term business plan for the Kingston-area ferries. This was not a new MTO contract, as the member had alleged, but extra work added to a pre-existing contract with local municipalities which, by the way, those municipalities had awarded through a competitive process.

With respect to the tenders for area maintenance in Sault Ste Marie, the reason no award was made was because all the bids were higher than the present MTO costs, and this is consistent with our commitment to outsource maintenance only where savings can be achieved for Ontario taxpayers. I think that the member would not want us to spend taxpayers' dollars that weren't necessary.

This non-award was announced in a non-ministry press release four months ago. The bidders were also advised by phone and in writing at that time.

The other issues raised by the member on July 3 had been --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The question around the contract in the Algoma-Manitoulin area was raised by one of the contractors who understood at the time that they were the low bidders. They asked the same question of you that they asked of me. IMOS was one of the bidders. IMOS did not get the contract. They were told the next day that no tender was going to be awarded. The same issue arose in Timmins, where MTO employees were given a memorandum stating, "If you want a job, get in touch with IMOS."

The question is this, and it's a very simple question: In Algoma-Manitoulin, IMOS does not register the low bid, so no contract is granted; in Timmins, MTO employees get a memorandum saying, "Talk to IMOS." Why is it that across this province, when it comes to privatization contracts from your ministry, always IMOS --

The Speaker: The Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Palladini: Again I want to say that the reason the contracts were not awarded was because the costs these contractors wanted to do the maintenance for were going to be greater than what MTO costs have been over a period of time.

I believe we have a commitment to the people of Ontario only to do certain things that are in their best interests in making sure that we put our dollars to good use. If a private sector contractor cannot deliver services in a cost-efficient way, obviously we are not going to privatize those services.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. I ask you not to pass the question, to deal specifically with your ministry's response in handing the Plastimet fire in Hamilton, from your perspective as Minister of Environment.

What we have seen since that night, and continually, has been nothing but total incompetence and mishandling of the situation by your ministry as a result of the cuts -- not because the people on the front line are not good or competent; it's because you have taken away their tools and their ability to respond to fires such as at Plastimet. Plastimet is only the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of such situations that are ready to explode across Ontario, and your ministry cannot respond.

It took 12 hours for your high-tech equipment to get to the site. It took 12 hours before we could properly monitor what was going on. There was a screwup right from the first moment, and you have to wear that and you can't run away from it, Minister.

Let me quote what you said in the Hamilton Spectator: "I am very concerned for the people of Hamilton. I have no fear of a public inquiry as to what my ministry did or did not do." Will you stick by those words and call a public inquiry today?

Hon Mr Sterling: I indicated before that the realm of any kind of inquiry into the emergency situation which resulted at the Plastimet fire would fall under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General, so therefore I refer the question to the Solicitor General.

Mr Agostino: I find it amazing that this minister cannot stand there and answer to the people of Hamilton why your ministry totally screwed up and put people's lives at risk. Firefighters today are fearing for their health, and police officers and residents, because of your incompetence and your ministry's incompetence.

Let me tell you what you had to say on July 17. This is your responsible comment: "` am not sure it's an environmental problem,' Norm Sterling says. `I don't feel it's an urgent issue.'" That was your response to the problem in Hamilton. Will you stand up, will you be accountable, will you do the honourable thing and reassure the people of Hamilton and of Ontario that this cannot happen again? Will you stand up today and urge your colleague to call a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Sterling: Ask me a question about the fire, ask me about the response of my ministry, and I'll be pleased to answer, but with regard to an inquiry, that's in the realm of the Solicitor General, so I refer the question to the Solicitor General.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. On page 5 of the Common Sense Revolution, your party said, "We will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions we take will not result in increases to local property taxes."

our government's download on to Ontario municipalities is anything but a wash. In fact, it has huge impacts in northern Ontario and northern Ontario households. I want to give you some examples of that per household for northerners. These numbers include what you are downloading with the exception of provincial highways, plus the elimination of the unconditional grants, because you well know they make up a significant portion of northern municipal budgets. In Algoma, the increase per household, $982; Cochrane district, the increase per household, $1,004; Kenora district, an increase of $1,185; Nipissing, an increase of $949 per household; Rainy River, $1,123, and the list goes on.

How can you justify these huge property tax increases for the people of northern Ontario?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to refer that question to the minister of northern affairs.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the question from the member of the third party. As she's well aware, or maybe she isn't, I'd like to remind her that it's a little premature to make those kinds of calculations right now. What we have is the first step in a process where we've given some numbers to municipal leaders so they can plan better to find efficiencies and restructure, and also give input on how to deliver service in the future given the fact that we're uploading half of the cost of residential education across the province.

She's also well aware of the next step. Now that we've seen some of the preliminary numbers on the fiscal trade, we want to make sure that the north is treated fairly. We recognize it costs more to do business in northern Ontario because of the climate, the sparse population spread over a large geographic area and a number of other factors that have been well documented by this government. We've treated them fairly in the past. We have this community reinvestment fund along with transition dollars to make sure at the end of the day all municipalities and all householders in the province are treated fairly.

Ms Martel: There's nothing premature about these numbers. These figures come from the download announced by your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs several weeks ago, including the unconditional grants which your government consistently refuses to admit have a huge impact on northern municipalities. Your northern grant of $70 million doesn't even come close to the total download in northern Ontario, which is estimated to be some $282.9 million every year. Your fund has no criteria. No one knows how to qualify. But everyone in northern Ontario certainly knows that $70 million is not going to deal with the shortfall they're going to experience under your government's download.

You're the Minister of Northern Development. When are you going to start standing up and defending northern municipalities and northerners from these huge property tax increases?

Hon Mr Hodgson: I am not sure where the member of the third party gets her exact figures, but I can tell you that the community reinvestment fund has $570 million. I can also tell you, as the Minister of Northern Development, that I've been working for a year with FONOM and NOMA and the mayors of northern Ontario. One of the recommendations they told us was that they want to see the reinstatement of the northern support grant which was cancelled in 1990, that your government did nothing about.

But they didn't want to call it a grant. They wanted grants in this province to be community reinvestment funds based on need, and this is just another step that we'll work on the details of this fall. I'm meeting with FONOM and NOMA and mayors next week at AMO, and that will be another step in the consultation. We want to take our time to get it right.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On August 5, I was both shocked and disturbed to learn that the Ontario Divisional Court had declared one of the province's tough new anti-drunk-driving laws unconstitutional. The administrative driver's licence suspension, a law which allows police officers to get an immediate 90-day licence suspension from the registrar of motor vehicles, and which incidentally was supported by all three parties in this House, is specifically designed to save lives by getting drunk drivers off our roads. This law is clearly in the public interest.

Holding a driver's licence is a privilege, not a right. Anyone who abuses that privilege and endangers the lives of others deserves to be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

I realize the minister cannot comment on the case while it is still before the courts. However, I would ask the minister to stand today and assure the people of Ontario that this ruling will not deter him from continuing to lead the way in the fight to eliminate drinking and driving.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank the member for her question and acknowledge once again her efforts in the fight against drinking and driving, which began long before many of us were in this chamber.

Unfortunately, alcohol is still one of the most common factors leading to fatal collisions in Ontario. In 1995, 317 people were killed in drinking-driver crashes, one third of all road fatalities. As the member knows, it is with her help and the help of all members in this chamber that this province is leading the way in implementing tough drunk-driving legislation.

In addition to the ADLS program, to which we are still very much committed and we will continue to make sure, we have also doubled RIDE funding to municipal police forces and passed Bill 138, which will increase mandatory licence suspension periods for convicted repeat offenders: three years for second-time offenders and at least 10 years for third-time offenders. All these measures are consistent with the widely held view that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Mrs Marland: I am very glad to hear we are not going to waver in our fight to keep drunk drivers off our roads. Drunk drivers are involved in over 60% of fatal automobile accidents.

I am very interested about Ontario's experience up to now with the administrative driver's licence suspension. We'd like to know if this new law has had tangible results, and do we need to take more punitive steps in this continuing battle to save lives? Can the minister offer the House any tangible results of this program? Is the number of drunk drivers being reduced compared to accident statistics of past years? Are lives being saved through the administrative driver's licence suspension?

Hon Mr Palladini: To date, almost 15,000 administrative driver's licence suspensions have been issued. Although the program has been in effect less than a year, there was an 11% decrease in the number of charges for blood alcohol over .08%. There was a 20% decrease in the number of drinking drivers involved in collisions in December 1996 compared to the previous eight years. There was a 25% decrease in the number of drinking drivers involved in personal injury collisions in the month of December, compared to the previous eight years, in 1996. There was also a 40% decrease in the number of drinking drivers in fatal collisions in December 1996 as compared to the previous eight years.

In the province of Manitoba, when they introduced ADLS, it was conclusive that drinking driver fatalities decreased by 27% over the previous five years, and also that impaired driving charges decreased by 32% compared to the previous five years. So we will continue to fight.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under

section 34(

a) of the standing orders, I'd like to request a late show for my question to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): File the appropriate papers.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 89, 91, 92, 93 and 94; that Mr Turnbull and Mr McLean exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business; that Mr Danford replace Mr Carroll in the order of precedence for private members' public business; and that the House will commence at 11 am on Thursday, August 21, to discuss ballot item 89 only.

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

PETITIONS

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It's my privilege to read a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women and only 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 research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"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;

"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, woman-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health."

It is with pleasure that I add my name to this petition to protect that important institution from this government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Could I ask members to please take your conversations outside.

PAY EQUITY

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

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced Bill 136; and

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

"Whereas home child care providers are predominantly female; and

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

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

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

COURT RULING

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by approximately 371 residents of the London area to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

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

"Whereas there is no dialysis treatment currently available in the Cornwall area; and

"Whereas this lack of local medical treatment forces dialysis patients throughout Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and beyond to drive to Ottawa or Kingston, sometimes several times a week, even during dangerous winter driving conditions, to receive this basic medical attention, incurring unnecessary stress, cost and inconvenience; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health promised on April 24, 1996, to rectify this medical shortfall by establishing a dialysis treatment facility in Cornwall; and

"Whereas this promise made by the Minister of Health has to date not been kept, resulting in local patients and their family and friends continuing to drive to Ottawa or Kingston for treatment several times per week during the above-noted conditions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the health minister follows through on the commitment made last April to set up this long-awaited and much-needed health service for Cornwall area residents."

That has been signed by 186 residents of Cornwall and SD&G.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 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 research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"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;

"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's-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health," Women's College Hospital.

This petition has been signed by 139 people and I am proud, on behalf of my caucus, to add my name.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by 401 Friends of Women's College Hospital in my riding.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women; and

"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; and

"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 health pioneered by Women's College Hospital through ensuring self-governance of the one hospital in Ontario dedicated to women's health."

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): There's a great deal of concern about Bill 109, the province's Local Control of Public Libraries Act, which is about to go through third reading. A number of people are very concerned. I have received a petition here from Nancy Fleming, the executive director of the Book and Periodical Council, who sent in a petition with hundreds of names. The petition reads:

"Given that the Ontario provincial government has withdrawn any direct financial support to the libraries of Ontario; and

"Given that community and citizen involvement in the defence of library collections will be weakened by recent legislation, Bill 109; and

"Given that municipal and education funders are also experiencing severe reductions in government support causing massive alteration of services; and

"Given the concomitant threat to the publishing and cultural industries of this province;

"Let it be known that we insist the government of Ontario seriously reconsider its role in supporting and financing the libraries, the publishers and the cultural producers in Ontario."

I am very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 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 research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"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;

"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."

I sign my name to this petition as well.

COURT DECISION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I again rise, this time with just under 1,000 names, and the petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

I endorse this petition with my signature.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"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, quality education, and adversely affecting seniors; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, and it reads as follows:

"Over half the people in Ontario are women; and

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

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

"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; and

"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; and

"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 needs and health."

This has been signed by 96 people. Our NDP caucus believes Women's College should be kept open. I have signed my name as well because I agree with the petitioners.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition signed by 21 people from my riding. In accordance with the standing orders, I'll summarize the contents of the petition. The petitioners declare their opposition to the expansion of casinos and the installation of electronic gambling devices and call for a binding referendum to determine the will of the people regarding the expansion of casinos. I'd like to file that today.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Speaker, as you know, a privatization process has begun for TVOntario and there is a petition, that this process has now started with some concerns about public consultation. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has bucked public sentiment 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 indicated that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

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

I'm glad to sign my name to the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, the national health and safety director of CAW Canada, on behalf of Buzz Hargrove and thousands of auto workers. The petition reads as follows.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I again add my name to theirs. Also, hopefully those hearings will be a lot longer than the shame of the WCB hearings.

RENT REGULATION

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the Peterborough riding. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I beg leave to present a report on the June 25, 1997, report of the Integrity Commissioner from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Tascona: No, Madam Speaker.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS' DAY

ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE JOUR DES LOYALISTES DE L'EMPIRE-UNI

Mr Danford moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 150,

An Act proclaiming United Empire Loyalists' Day / Projet de loi 150, Loi proclamant le jour des Loyalistes de l'Empire-Uni.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you have a brief explanatory comment?

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I will be very brief today. This basically is a bill that will recognize the significant role that I feel the United Empire Loyalists played in the formation of the province of Ontario. We'll debate it later, and I'll be glad to address it then.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1997

Ms Bassett, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 143,

An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 / Projet de loi 143, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1997.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): Bill 143 provides for the necessary legal approval of estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, and for expenditures made during that fiscal year. The government passed interim supply motions to pay salaries and other costs of the government to provide public services to Ontarians. Bill 143 gives effect to those interim motions.

Supply bills are a routine part of the spending process. The expenditures approved in Bill 143 reflect this government's putting into action its commitment to spend less money and reduce the size of government. We know we are spending taxpayer money, not our money, and we are accountable for every dollar the government spends.

This government is committed to the principle of accountability to the taxpayer in everything it does. This is a break from the past which saw the provincial government grow even larger, more costly and more out of touch with the people it serves. We are demanding that government do business like any other business, in other words, in an efficient and productive manner that focuses on results and puts customers first. We are committed to maintaining the quality of our programs by looking at delivering them in a different, more efficient way. We are protecting priority services within a more affordable and innovative government.

To meet this challenge, we are continuing to explore the most cost-effective means for government to do this job. We understand that taxpayers work hard for their money and we will continue to work hard to ensure that their tax dollars are wisely spent. We believe that government must be accountable to taxpayers. That is why we introduced the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, cut red tape, ended the gold-plated pension plan for MPPs, and that is why we will be introducing the Public Sector Accountability Act, so that taxpayers can see how their tax dollars are being used.

The government's plan is working. Our cautious and prudent approach means that we are on a track for a balanced budget for 2000-2001. Ontario's economy is responding with jobs and growth and renewed optimism and confidence. These goals are playing a key role in returning prosperity to Ontario and making this province the best place in the world to live, to work and to invest.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Questions and comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is an exercise which may be modified by the rule changes the member's government is bringing in to restrict the opportunity for members of the Legislature to debate the important issues of the day, and it's most unfortunate that she should know that under the rule changes this debate, and any future time, regardless of the issues that might be before the House, will be confined to one sessional day as opposed to any other period of time. There are from time to time instances where that should be extended, some instances where it might be abbreviated.

Not this particular bill, but the most important bill or motion coming before this House is the motion to change the rules of this House, because it will mean that now there will be much less debate on important issues of the day, including interim supply. The government will now essentially be run not only symbolically speaking but in fact by a few advisers to the Premier and senior cabinet ministers and this House will become completely irrelevant.

What you saw today in the gallery, unfortunate as governments believe this to be, will become the norm rather than the exception as people believe they don't have the opportunity to express themselves in this House in any meaningful way, indeed in any significant length of time. That means people are going to be looking more outside of the Legislature to make their points or engage in extraordinary procedural or disruptive activities to make their views known.

The member should know that is exactly what is going to happen. I hope she will inform the Premier and his advisers of the inadvisability of proceeding with the drastic rule changes that are being contemplated by the government.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The parliamentary assistant yet again has demonstrated the sort of revision of history this government always tends to indicate when they talk about anything. The parliamentary assistant, during her comments on concurrence in supply, talked about how her government was the first somehow to have taken into account how government spends money.

I want the member across the way to know that every government in Ontario, in every province across this country and the federal government, has always been concerned about how it spends taxpayers' dollars. The Mike Harris government is not the first government of Ontario all of a sudden to care about where public dollars are spent. Everybody who serves in this Legislature understands we are here primarily to do a couple of things, but one of them is that we oversee, especially you as the government, the finances of Ontario, and you do so at the behest of the taxpayers and on their behalf.

To somehow stand here in your place and in your speech talk about being the first government to come to this conclusion, that really galls me and I think it galls a lot of people in this House. It's very much of a pattern that this government tends to do. Every time this government gets up and talks about anything, they talk about how all of a sudden they're the first government to ever have done anything; nobody has ever done anything in the past; the last 10 years were the lost 10 years where everything was terrible and awful; nothing good happened in Ontario. What hogwash.

People are very understanding of what happened in Ontario over the last 130 years and they understand that every successive government that has governed -- and I use the word "governed" -- in this province has done so on behalf of the people of Ontario and has done a very good job. This province has been a prosperous one because of the efforts of all the governments of Ontario. For this government to somehow say differently I think is a great disrespect.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today and participate in some small way on Bill 143. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick, who is the PA to the Minister of Finance, as we all know in this House has done an exemplary job of communicating the message, and the message is very much like the previous member said, "the lost 10 years." In fact, if you look at the fiscal situation we inherited, our commitment to balance the budget is where we were elected and I believe why we were elected. This particular Bill 143 is just one more step.

But I think the commitment to fiscal responsibility, as well as maintaining service in Ontario, is important, but the most important thing is that we started with ourselves. We reviewed the MPPs' compensation. I give all members of this House full credit, but there were some who wanted to hang on to those old traditions. We eliminated the MPP pension and all members shared in that fiscal responsibility.

We're working with our municipal partners and all of our partners in the public sector: hospitals, colleges, universities and the schools. In fact, if you look at the record of this government, we look at what programs we can afford and what programs we can sustain in the future. I ask the people listening to the discussion on Bill 143 here today to recognize the importance of having sustainable funding for our colleges and universities, our schools, our hospitals and our safe communities. We're all sharing in a province that's trying to stop spending $11 billion more per year than it takes in as revenue.

We had two choices: We could either increase taxes or cut services, or reduce or modify services, eliminate waste and duplication. So I commend the member for St Andrews-St Patrick and I anxiously await her response to the rebuttals from all three sides.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Of course, if you had just done what you said you were going to do, it may have been one thing, but by giving people a tax cut when we're still running an annual deficit on a year-to-year basis makes absolutely no sense at all.

The other thing you've got to remember is that in this interim supply are the municipal support grants, and I think the people out there should know that as of this year there are no more municipal support grants. It's all right for the Premier to say, as he did after he had the meeting with the mayors here in the city of Toronto last week, and I quote him, according to the paper anyway, that "Nothing in these trades should impact on property tax rates positively or negatively." Let me tell you, the municipalities in this province think totally differently about that.

As a result of a meeting we had in Kingston this past Friday which was attended by 15 wardens and 15 CAOs of the 15 counties making up eastern Ontario, each and every one of these wardens and CAOs stated that real estate taxes in their particular municipality were going to rise by somewhere between 20% and 56% as a result of the downloading that this province is doing upon the municipalities. Those are the facts. This is not the propaganda of one party or another party.

These are the figures that have actually been determined in each one of the counties as to what it will cost local taxpayers as a result of property tax increases, as a result of the downloading and as a result of the municipal support grants which have traditionally been available throughout Ontario to municipalities no longer being available to them.

Let me just quote to you from the minutes of the meeting that took place last Friday. It states, "Counties anticipate tax increases will average 20% to 30% and vary between 20% and 50% as a result of the Who Does What initiatives." That's the result of this government's action.

Ms Bassett: I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments, certainly the member for St Catharines and the member for Cochrane South, who pointed out that he is -- and I stand corrected; I am delighted to hear that he is concerned about every penny we spend. As you know, when we inherited a deficit of $11.2 billion as the newcomer coming into government, we focused on how we spend every single penny. That is exactly what the Supply Act -- it's a routine part of the spending process. The government passed