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

August 21, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l217 - Thu 21 Aug 1997 / Jeu 21 Aoû 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COAT OF ARMS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT MAILING

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

SWANSEA HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

FIRE IN HAMILTON

HENLEY REGATTA SITE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

FASTBALL TOURNAMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILD PROTECTION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SURVIVORS' BENEFITS

CHILD PROTECTION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

SURVIVORS' BENEFITS

CHILD PROTECTION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD PROTECTION

FIRE IN HAMILTON

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GASOLINE PRICES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

NATURAL GAS SUPPLIERS

FUND-RAISING

EDUCATION FINANCING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

DROUGHT RELIEF IN RENFREW

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

COURT DECISION

CREMATORIUM IN VAUGHAN

FIRE IN HAMILTON

BEAR HUNTING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

COURT DECISION

WELLESLEY CENTRAL HOSPITAL

WOMEN'S COLLEGE HOSPITAL

BEAR HUNTING

WELLESLEY CENTRAL HOSPITAL

PETITIONS

COURT DECISION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KOREAN CANADIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT, 1997

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N O 2)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1102.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COAT OF ARMS

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I move that in the opinion of this House, Ontario's coat of arms, like those of the majority of Canada's provinces, should feature the royal crown and other suitable heraldic devices, thus completing this official representation of our system of government.

Therefore, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario requests that Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council petition the Canadian Heraldic Authority to augment Ontario's coat of arms with the embellishments to which it is entitled.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Jordan: It is a great privilege for me to stand in the House today to discuss my private member's resolution to augment Ontario's coat of arms.

It has been said that symbols speak. All cultures and nations throughout history have had and continue to have their special symbols by which people remind themselves of their personal and group identities.

Coats of arms were originally jackets with symbolic designs on them that indicated to others the authority in which name the person wearing it was acting. It also indicated national, cultural and religious significance and meaning. Such jackets were often worn by soldiers going into battle to allow one side to determine who belonged to the enemy side. From the idea of a heraldic jacket comes the familiar term "Union Jack," since that design was also worn in like manner.

This is what the coat of arms of Ontario represents today. It is a symbol of authority or, to be precise, it is the arms of the Queen in and for the province of Ontario. It represents the crown as the source of authority within our system of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

The arms of Ontario have undergone significant amendment before and after Confederation in 1867. If we look immediately behind the Speaker's chair in this chamber we see a representation of the coat of arms of Great Britain. The arms of Great Britain, which were once universal in all colonies and countries that were once part of the British Empire, continue to figure prominently in the Great Seal of Ontario as well. But those arms do not represent Britain in the first instance. They represent rather the authority of the crown as the source of the rule of law, the guarantor of the protection of the rights of citizens and the fount of all honour.

In 1867, the province of Ontario was created as a part of the Dominion of Canada, along with the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The shield of Ontario, consisting of three gold maple leaves on a field of green, surmounted by the cross of St George, was granted by Queen Victoria on May 26, 1868. On February 27, 1909, King Edward VII augmented the shield with a green and gold crest with a black bear above the shield and supporters in the form of a moose and a deer.

The loyalist motto was also granted at that time. In Latin, the motto reads: "Loyal In The Beginning, So Remaining." The arms of Ontario are also the only arms in Canada to be stylized, which means the arms are not open to individual

interpretation by artists.

Red and white are the historic colours of England and France and these colours were used interchangeably by both countries over the last 1,000 years. In the first instance, the St George's banner represents the parliamentary tradition of Britain as first established by Simon de Montfort who, in the 13th century, helped establish the first Parliament in England, along with the formation and signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede.

As an interesting aside, when we as members of this chamber bow towards the Speaker's chair, we are not in fact bowing to anything that is here in this House. The first Parliament in England was conducted at Westminster in a church. The altar was removed to make room for the Speaker's chair. When members of the early House left or entered the chamber they bowed to the consecrated spot on which the Speaker's chair stood. To this day, we in all parliaments of the Commonwealth show our historic unity with that first Parliament at Westminster by bowing in the same manner.

Unlike the Canadian coat of arms, however, the Ontario coat of arms does not have a crown. As a matter of fact, it has only been in the last 20 years or so that crowns have been added to provincial coats of arms in Canada. The exception to the rule is the province of Quebec, which in 1939 had its shield augmented with a crown to signify the special protection that Quebec cultural, religious and political rights enjoy under the authority of the crown. It is important to note that the people of Quebec have always referred to their royal past to establish and maintain their cultural identity.

Since the 1980s the co-sovereignty of the province has in fact been recognized, so the provinces have successfully applied for the augmentations to which they are entitled.

We all remember the great example that was set in this regard by a former Speaker of this assembly, David Warner. In addition to his House duties, that Speaker was very committed to the parliamentary process and to Commonwealth activities. It was under him that the coat of arms for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario was granted in this House in 1992 to honour the 100th anniversary of this building and the 200th anniversary of the opening of the first Ontario Parliament by Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe.

I submit before all members of this House that the time has come for Ontario to join the other provinces in augmenting its coat of arms to represent our province's co-sovereignty within Confederation, as well as to celebrate our 130th anniversary as a province that was founded by French royalists and the United Empire Loyalists. The augmentation of the coat of arms of Ontario, like the granting of arms for this Legislative Assembly, would be an appropriate way to celebrate our great provincial heritage and the landmark anniversaries that we observe this year. Finally, it would underscore our co-sovereignty as a province and multicultural society.

At this time, special mention should be given to Alex Roman, a loyal and devoted monarchist. Alex has been invaluable in the assistance he has given this resolution. His hard work and dedication do not go unnoticed. I would like to ask Alex, Mr Arthur Bousfield, vice-chair of the Monarchist League, and Mr Garry Toffoli, the Ontario chairman of the Monarchist League, to please stand. They are with us, and with them are my staff members Pat deCouto and Matthew MaGuire, who also worked very hard to put this together.

I also want to thank all my honourable colleagues in the House for this opportunity to present my resolution, and I would ask for your enthusiastic support for it. Thank you. God save the Queen.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'm very pleased to join this debate, but before doing so, I must say that I am somewhat surprised by the kinds of motions that government members particularly have brought forward during private members' business. I realize it's an opportunity for us to bring forward whatever item is of particular urgency to that particular member, and I realize the importance of this particular resolution.

But look at everything that's going on in this province over the last couple of years and the tremendous havoc out there as far as the public services are concerned. Look at the fact that hospitals are in great chaos because the government is about to close 20 or 30 hospitals throughout this province, and the tremendous concern that the people of Ontario have about their health care and about the alternative care and the community care facilities and services that need to be out there.

Look at what's happening to the education system as well, where we're throwing out the governance structure for the educational system in Ontario that predates Confederation, that predates municipal government.

School boards have been in Ontario since 1837 and form an integral part of this province, but we are basically doing away with that system because we're not giving school boards any power whatsoever under the new proposed act; the power to tax has been done away with and the boards have become such large, humongous boards that you probably won't find people who want to serve on them because of the travel that will be required.

Look at what's happening to the municipal infrastructure in this province, where municipality after municipality is saying, "If we have the current downloading provisions from the province handed on down to us, then the municipal taxpayers will have to just pay more and more so we can all somehow afford Mike Harris's provincial tax cut." When you look at all that, you wonder why a resolution like this is before us.

I'm going to support this particular resolution -- let me say that -- because I believe it is important. I am a great believer in history and in the heritage of this province and from where we started and from whence we've come. I think our symbols ought to reflect that. In terms of the symbolism of endorsing the notion of a crown on our coat of arms, I totally believe in it and will be supporting.

It also gives us an opportunity to think of the tremendous contribution that the United Empire Loyalists have made to this province. I know most people out there think the United Empire Loyalists were all strictly from Anglo-Saxon stock. This gives us an opportunity to indicate to people that many of the United Empire Loyalists were ex-slaves, and many were immigrants from different countries who had come to the United States but wanted to remain loyal to the crown and settled particularly in eastern Ontario and in the riding the member from Lanark represents and in my own riding of Kingston and The Islands.

The United Empire Loyalists have made a tremendous contribution to that part of Ontario and indeed to the entire province. Many of our early leaders of all political persuasions, and not only in the political field but also in the field of industry and the field of education and in every other aspect of our daily life, came from United Empire Loyalist stock or were United Empire Loyalists who came to this province more than 200 years ago.

I intend to support this particular resolution. I have the highest respect for the member for Lanark-Renfrew. I realize he's one of the senior members of this House and he has much wisdom in the number of years he has spent in public life, not only in this particular forum but also in other forums. I urge him to speak to his cabinet colleagues -- he's got much greater influence there than I have as a member of the opposition -- and ask them to review some of these matters they're bringing forward in education and in the health care field.

Let us make sure this province remains a province of opportunity, educational opportunity, and a province where people are dealt with equally and fairly when it comes to our health care system. That's the underlying aspect of this province. That's the way it has always been under governments in the past.

When you think of the governments of Bill Davis and John Robarts and the Conservative dynasty of 42 years, regardless of what else may be said, most people felt they always governed with a sense of fairness. I think we're losing that in this province right now. Some people think the changes are going too fast, and some people think that particularly those who are vulnerable in our society are not being adequately protected. I certainly happen to believe that.

If you're vulnerable, then the notion that the government will somehow protect your rights and interests is rapidly disappearing with the current government. So I ask the member to talk to your cabinet colleagues about that, and let's temper some of those changes that you're bringing in this province, and indeed reverse them. But I will be supporting this resolution. I think it's very important that we respect the heritage and culture, all of what made Ontario what it is today. Certainly the United Empire Loyalists and the crown have played an extremely large

part in that.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): With the amount of effort and work that has gone into bringing forward a resolution of this kind, I'd like to congratulate the member on his efforts in making changes to the coat of arms. In some of the background material we see that other provinces, with the exception of three, have over the years made changes to their coat of arms and have a crown on the coat of arms.

I'm just wondering about the actual cost of making this change. At a time when we see in the last two years a reduction in every service that the people of Ontario have been receiving, should we be spending the millions of dollars it's going to take to make that change at this particular point in time?

I'm in favour of protecting all of our natural heritage that we have out there, including the wildlife, the fish, the spawning beds for the fish and all of this to make sure this environment is there for my children and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren. These are the areas that we should be spending the dollars on. We should be spending dollars to make sure we have a proper health care system, a good education system, that the municipalities are not going to have to increase property taxes as a result of cutbacks that have taken place over the last couple of years.

Myself and my colleagues have no problem with this particular resolution, but it touches at the heart of the actual dollars. I have no problem with putting this to a committee and working with the member for Lanark-Renfrew, Mr Jordan, on coming up with something. He's given us all kinds of information and mock-up emblems on how the coat of arms would look with a crown on it, and he should be congratulated on that.

But at a time, as I said before, when we're going through a revolution that started two years ago and that revolution is taking its toll throughout this province, I would have thought the private members in the Conservative caucus would be bringing forward resolutions and motions to let the Conservative caucus and Conservative cabinet ministers know the anger and frustration that is out there in this province, the anger and frustration against this government, especially the Premier, that they would be bringing forth resolutions and motions to slow this down.

I understand that there are all kinds of cartoons being produced by daily newspapers that reflect the general population that it's moving too fast and in the wrong direction in a lot of cases.

As I said before, municipalities, health care, education, a lot of these other services, services for the seniors -- instead of raising taxes on seniors, raising taxes on property owners, raising taxes for everybody else out there to give a 30% tax break to the wealthiest people in this province, these are the items that the people in this province and the people that I represent, my constituents, want me to talk about and that I'm sure they want the Conservative members to talk about.

We're at the point now where this government is so much off the track that they had to call a special emergency sitting of the Legislature to make sure they can ram through more legislation so they can go ahead with municipal elections, they can go ahead with school board elections, because without the sitting that started last Monday, this province would be completely falling apart.

They've been unable to implement the legislation that they wanted to in the two-year period so that they would prepare themselves for the municipal elections that are normally held in November. Some of them now are probably going to have to be postponed until 1999 because the legislation is not completed. We see that this government could be brought back on track if the backbenchers and the cabinet ministers would listen to the general population out there.

As I said at the beginning, I have no problem in supporting this particular resolution on revising and updating the coat of arms, but there are a lot of other important issues out there: women and children in this province, the seniors who want to hear from the Conservative government on how they're going to be treated and dealt with in the future --

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My understanding is that the member should be speaking to the resolution. He's talking on everything but the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: I agree.

Mr Len Wood: Thank you, and thank you for the interjection. The coat of arms is very important. As our lead speaker said, there's an emblem behind the Speaker. The coat of arms stands for a lot out there in this province. But there are a lot of other issues that should be dealt with, and I'm sure there are going to be some other speakers who are going to touch on them as we go through this one-hour debate on changing the coat of arms by putting a crown on it, as some of the other provinces have done.

But I must go back to some of the other issues that are out there that are very scary and very damaging to a lot of the people in this province who would like to see other issues debated, whether it be in private members' hour or whether it be during question period or whether it be during committee public hearings, rather than dealing with an issue such as this at this point in time.

I will leave some of my time to my colleague, and if he has some time, we'll give it to the other party. But as I said at the beginning, I will be supporting this particular resolution and hopefully all members in this Legislature will be supporting it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to stand in the House today in support of the resolution brought forward by my colleague the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew. I congratulate my colleague for what I believe is a long-overdue completion of the Ontario coat of arms. This is especially true when we see that most of the provinces in the Dominion of Canada have augmented their arms. As the member for Lanark-Renfrew has said, their co-sovereignty with the federal government is in place.

I echo my colleague's view. This being the 500th anniversary of the arrival of John Cabot bearing the royal standard of the crown and the 130th anniversary of Ontario in Confederation, there is no better moment in our history to fully complete our provincial coat of arms.

The enduring role of the crown in our past, present and future is one that should definitely be celebrated. As the member for Simcoe East, I am proud to represent a riding named for the first Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, John Graves Simcoe. Simcoe was responsible for directly implementing the great legacy of the rule of law and administration under the authority of the crown.

That legacy included the outlawing of slavery in Upper Canada. We were 50 years ahead of Britain and 75 years ahead of the United States.

That legacy included the passage of the Constitution Act, which defined and protected the cultural, political and religious rights of Lower Canada and Quebec.

That legacy included the parliamentary system of government that has guided Ontario's development into one of the world's most progressive societies, where multicultural diversity is celebrated and shared by all citizens: this thanks to the open, international cultural focus that the crown and the Commonwealth have afforded us.

Simcoe was indeed one of the great founding fathers of our province. He is more than deserving of a day in his honour, and I know that my colleague the member for Scarborough East is working on his private member's bill to declare Simcoe Day on the first Monday of August. I know all members of this House will want to support him in that important endeavour.

A completed coat of arms for Ontario will celebrate other important themes in our province's history often overlooked or forgotten. The town of Penetanguishene in my riding is a fine example. "Penetanguishene" means "the land of the shifting sands." As one drives into the picturesque town, one sees two angels with trumpets on either side of the road. They represent the guardian angels of the province of Ontario and of the province of Quebec. The trumpeting angelic couriers stand at the entrance of a town that has probably seen more Canadian history than any other Canadian town or city west of Quebec.

Penetanguishene was founded by none other than Samuel de Champlain, whose ship entered Penetang Bay in 1650 and who claimed the land for the French crown. The spot where he is said to have landed is marked by a white cross which is lit up at night. Less than several hundred yards away is the site of the historic Huron village of Toanchay, home to French missionaries Jean de Brébeuf and Nicolas Viel. Beginning on September 26, 1626, they wrote the first French-Huron dictionary.

The legacy of Penetanguishene is a legacy of the crown and of our history. This resolution will, if passed, celebrate Ontario's history and future for all time. I hope the augmentations will include the badges of the United Empire Loyalists and of the Royal French, which speaks to the issue of Canadian unity both in the past and today.

In terms of cost for the augmented coat of arms, it is nominal: from $2,000 to $5,000, which pays for the administrative costs. As with the arms of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, once the certificate with the full coat of arms is issued, the use of the arms will be implemented slowly over time at the discretion of the government.

For example, the Legislative Assembly coat of arms has yet to be represented widely. Here in the Legislative Building there is a framed copy in the lobby. The door of the Speaker's office also displays the meaningful symbol and it is used throughout the offices of the Legislative Assembly, including the interparliamentary and public relations branch.

Should this resolution pass, no one will start ripping down existing Ontario coats of arms from buildings and walls. I draw your attention, as the member has already done, to the coat of arms behind the Speaker's chair, which is of Britain. No one could ever suggest that it be discarded in favour of the modern arms of Ontario today.

Our heritage is one that should be celebrated and honoured. The completion of the Ontario coat of arms would create an enduring monument and reminder to future generations of Ontarians. It will remind us of our early heroes and those who work today in the spirit of the motto of the Order of Canada, "Desiring a better country."

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would like to, first of all, welcome our guests to the chamber and recognize their interest in the resolution that we are debating here today. I would also like to commend the member for Lanark-Renfrew, as I know he has put much thought into the proposal and we've received a great amount of information. Unfortunately, I can say that I won't be supporting this resolution. As the previous speaker from Cochrane North has indicated already, there are many more issues and real concerns to my constituents.

I would suggest that if you went to any number of my constituents, you would find that this is not a real concern to them. I think the first thing they would say, if I were to go and say to them that we're looking at a change in the coat of arms, is: "Okay. What's that going to cost? Is that going to mean a cost to my son or daughter who has returned to university where they're facing increased tuition fees, where they've been out of work for most of the summer, have not been able to retain a summer job, and now we're talking about a cost going into the change of the coat of arms?"

As well, if I went to my municipalities, they would say: "Oh, there's nothing wrong with the coat of arms. We've all been very proud of that over the years. When we're faced with dumping, unloading of costs, now we're having the government here saying, `We're going to put additional costs into the change of the coat of arms.'"

It's not a real issue among any of my constituents and it has never, ever, as long as I've been here, and I've been here longer than the member for Lanark-Renfrew, been brought to my attention from either a constituent or any member or anyone in the province for that matter.

I think what we have to look at, and again with much respect to the member, are the real issues, the real concerns that are facing the people of this province today. When we talk about closing hospitals, we have a Premier who indicated during the 1995 campaign that it was not in his plan to close hospitals. We have that on tape. We have him making that very specific statement. You would think that the member from Lanark-Renfrew would come in here and want to talk about an issue like that, an issue that would probably be as important to his constituents as it is to mine.

Education in the province of Ontario is another very important issue that I hear about on a regular basis. Rather than talking about a change to the coat of arms, I would think that's another issue the member would want want to take a look at, an issue that I hear about on a daily basis. As I indicated earlier, I have yet to hear from one constituent about the provincial coat of arms. It's not in the cards at this very juncture in the province's history.

When we talk to constituents such as nurses, such as policemen out there, such as people working in the tourist industry, they're not concerned about the coat of arms. Again, I think we have some very important issues, some very real concerns. It would have been my hope today that this member would have joined some of the other members in his caucus, such as Mr Murdoch, Mr Skarica, Mr Carr, Mr Kells, who are coming out and stating publicly what their real concerns are, what they're hearing from their constituents as they move throughout their constituency.

I would say that in bringing forth such a resolution today, when we have all these issues on the table, that some of the members are out of touch with what every day Ontarians are saying to them as members representing their ridings; the member has got to be out of touch with many of their concerns that we hear on a regular basis. We know every Thursday we have private members' resolutions come forth to this Legislature and it's a very important time. I agree that these are private members' issues that we are hearing about in our constituencies.

I challenge not only this member but other members who will be bringing forth those resolutions in the future to really talk about what they're hearing in their constituencies, what they are hearing from their constituents.

It's kind of interesting that just recently we are starting to hear about some of these issues. We're finding out that it's the Tory backbenchers, the Tory MPPs, who are becoming worried now. Remember, we're almost halfway through the mandate and all of a sudden they're starting to say, "Holy cow, we've got people out there who don't agree with our policies and I have to get re-elected," and they're suggesting these are issues that are being put forth to them. The coat of arms is not one of them. I must say, that's not one of them.

When I go back to it, I think the constituents out there are more concerned as to what it's going to cost the taxpayer. "What is this going to cost? Does this mean my son or daughter will not have a summer job next year?" in one of these many beautiful programs we heard about yesterday. Then we're finding out more and more that some of them not only did not exist to the extent the ministers were telling us, but all of a sudden we're told about a coat of arms change here today in the Legislature.

I ask the member in his closing remarks to try to convince me that this is not going to be a great cost to the taxpayer. I don't think he can do that. I really don't think he can do that when we talk about this actual change and what it will do here in the province of Ontario. Again, with this government coming along with its many incoherent policies, I would have thought that the member for Lanark-Renfrew would have actually stood up today and talked a little bit more about important issues: issues important not only to his constituents but to my constituents as well.

All one has to do is actually take a look at the present coat of arms today. If you take a look at it, you see a moose, an elk, a bear. There are three animals on there that are very important to my constituents, whether it be a licence to hunt moose, the elk population, the spring bear hunt. Those are important issues represented in what I feel is a coat of arms that represents this province as we sit here today and take a look at it. One just has to take a look at the present coat of arms.

I really think that this member and other members, when it comes to private members' resolutions, Mr Galt being one of them, could maybe take a look at what they are hearing from constituents in their riding and think a little bit more about what they might want to present in this House during this very important time.

I think of people like a constituent of mine. Now, she hasn't received anything on the coat of arms, and I have to be fair here. I know she hasn't received anything on what the member for Lanark-Renfrew has been promoting, but she did receive a very interesting paper: Promises Made, Promises Kept, a two-year major milestone on the Harris government, sent to her by Mike Harris. It was sent to her after she had just lost her job because Mike Harris had cancelled her program. Yet Mike Harris has the gall to send this out to my constituent.

Again, I can't say that she received anything from the member for Lanark-Renfrew regarding the coat of arms, but she was very upset to receive this after Mike Harris had laid her off, cut her program, cut her funding, and then had the audacity to send her out this. Promises Kept: jobs, all kinds of stuff in there, after cutting her program, laying her off and laying her fellow workers off, trying to promote to her. She has indicated to me that she has written back to the Premier saying that he had a lot of nerve in doing this. Again, I go back to the coat of arms.

I must admit, I don't think she has received anything on this, but I tell you, Jacqueline Rush, who was a training consultant with skills development, would not be interested in this at this time.

Again, on principle, I cannot support this resolution in this, a very important time in our province.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am pleased to join in the debate on this resolution. Let me say at the outset that it is my intention to support the resolution.

Applause.

Mr Christopherson: It's not very often I get applauded by the government and I don't know if I like it.

Let me say that one of the reasons I want to support this is indeed very personal. While my last name is Danish and I'm very proud of that, the birth name of my mother was Clapham, and there's a great tradition of British history on that side of my family. According to my mother -- and I don't imagine anyone in this place or anywhere else is going to refute the authority of my mother or anyone else's mother -- we can trace it back and there are United Empire Loyalists in the family. There are even landmarks in England that are named after the family, and it's always nice to stand up and be proud of our heritage and our background.

For all those reasons, in addition to the fact that in my riding of Hamilton Centre a large proportion of the population also has roots back to England and all of Britain, I think it's appropriate on a personal basis as well as being the elected member for that area to reflect support for this resolution, and I'm very pleased and very proud to do so.

In light of the fact that there is a reference to contemporary realities, I would have hoped and would have preferred that some more time could have been spent to perhaps enhance that reality more. I don't have a quick and easy answer for that, but I think it would be appropriate as our country changes and as our province changes, and certainly all of North America is changing. That diversity is as much a part of our strength as our history.

I think to enhance that, in addition to the change with the crown, would not have offended anyone who likes to see the enhancement with the crown and certainly would give a much greater connection for people whose origins are not British. I know that the Brits in my riding are as proud of their neighbours who are from other countries as are those new Canadians who have come to our province and come to our community and share the benefit and the beauty of living in Hamilton.

So if there's any opportunity to do that or if the member could comment on that, I'd like to hear it because I know there are a lot of my constituents who would like to know that this Legislature is as interested in the contemporary realities as we are our historical roots.

Let me also say that in all honesty I cannot recall, and if anybody wanted me to, I'd be prepared to check with my staff, receiving a single phone call in the seven years that I have been in this place asking for a change to the coat of arms. That doesn't mean it's not important -- obviously, it is -- but I sure get a lot of calls about a number of other matters.

I raise that because what came to my mind -- and I would think it's not true, knowing the member as I do, and he's been here longer than I have -- is that it almost seems like a convenient diversion, that with all the other issues we do get phone calls about and all the concerns that are out there, it's rather convenient that this hour of the Legislature can be spent talking about something that really is quite motherhood. It's not very controversial. It's not really going to affect anyone's life.

Certainly, it's not going to mitigate the damage this government's agenda has done to the lives of the people I represent. I think it would have been more relevant had we seen members, in this case the member for Lanark-Renfrew, bring something that was more contemporary in terms of the quality of life of my constituents, which is falling dramatically as a result of changes this government is bringing about.

Certainly when I talk to people who are at or below the poverty line, the coat of arms is not exactly the first issue that springs from their lips as I ask them about contemporary realities. I would have been happier to be standing here talking about a private member's resolution or bill that would have enhanced their lives or, at the very least, mitigated some of the hurt and pain and loss of quality of life that is taking place in my riding.

In closing, let me return to the fact that however strongly I may feel about some of my concerns, it's the member's right to bring forward what he considers to be a priority. I respect that and will be here to participate in the vote and would recognize our guests here, to whom obviously this is very important. They deserve the attention and respect of this House in that their member brought this forward.

I will indeed be standing up and voting in favour to reflect what I think is an important part of our heritage, but would again ask the member, if he can't change what he's proposing at this time, I would very much appreciate hearing him comment on the contemporary realities of people whose origins are not British. I am just concerned that one of the three maple leaves is maybe just not enough to recognize the importance of the diversity and the strength that it gives us.

With that I will close my remarks and look forward to the rest of the debate.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I am privileged to rise today on behalf of the people of Wellington and join in today's debate on the resolution sponsored by my good friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew regarding the augmentation of Ontario's coat of arms.

I too wish to congratulate my friend for the outstanding work he does every day on behalf of the people of Lanark-Renfrew and for bringing this resolution forward at this time. I hope it sees speedy passage in the House this morning.

Of course, you might expect someone who represents a riding named for the famous Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, to be in favour of this resolution, as I am, involving as it does the completion of the Ontario coat of arms with a crown and trilliums.

It's important to note that the adoption of our official flower grew out of a movement during the First World War to choose a national Canadian floral emblem appropriate for planting on the graves of Canadian servicemen overseas who had given their lives defending the ideals of our nation. The trillium was proposed by the Ottawa Horticultural Society for just such a purpose, but no national flower was ever chosen. It was finally adopted by the province of Ontario in 1937. As one writer of the day put it, "The three sepals and the leaves of the trillium represent the founding fathers of our nation, the aboriginal peoples, the French and the British."

So closely identified with Ontario has it become that the provincial crown of Ontario is now sometimes called the "trillium crown" to signify and express the notion of the co-sovereignty of Ontario with the federal government in Confederation.

One could ostensibly argue for the inclusion of other provincial symbols at the base of the shield of Ontario, as has been done in the rendering of the arms of other provinces such as New Brunswick and Manitoba. The amethyst, the white pine and even perhaps the common loon could be included, if it is the will of the House. The stylized version of the current coat of arms of Ontario would need to be revised and returned to its earlier naturalistic expression, as obtains in all other provincial arms, to achieve a more realistic effect in accordance with the rules of heraldry.

The people of Ontario, it can be said without exaggeration, are a community that is deeply aware and appreciative of its roots. This is why I believe the passage of today's resolution will be greeted very positively by Ontarians across the province, irrespective of their background or political affiliation.

What I'm simply suggesting is that the role of the crown and of our historic traditions is very important in general to all Ontarians, irrespective of their cultural backgrounds. It is a heritage we are all fortunate to share. Those institutions and traditions are a crucial factor in Ontario's ongoing development. We cannot deny our past, nor ever should we; and we can celebrate the best of it and teach others about it, especially in our schools. Civics is an important subject for citizens of all nations to learn, and it has sometimes been said that we in Canada have tended to neglect it.

Our symbols, many of which will be represented on a completed provincial coat of arms, are all an important part of the culture held in common by all Ontarians. They cut across what differentiates us as individuals and groups without cancelling out the characteristic cultural diversity of our society. That is why I say again that I support very strongly this resolution to augment the provincial coat of arms of Ontario, and I call on all members of the House to make their support unanimous.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I too am very honoured to be able to stand here and congratulate the member for Lanark-Renfrew for bringing forward this resolution. If I may be so bold as to offer the suggestion, this is just another example of the hard work and dedication that member brings to this chamber. As a newly elected member myself two years ago, I must say that the member for Lanark-Renfrew is very much a role model for the rest of us in terms of his dedication.

I was somewhat troubled by the member for Kenora's comments, because the very first thing we do, before we can even claim the title of parliamentarian, is to swear an oath to the crown. To suggest that therefore symbolism is not critically important to reflect that authority in the coat of arms of this province is quite unusual and quite untoward. To suggest that private members' hour is somehow not an appropriate forum to discuss issues like this is very unbecoming, and the member should know better. Private members' hour is precisely to be used for an issue such as this.

Mr Miclash: Talk to my constituents. Talk to Jacqueline Rush after her program was cancelled. Talk to Jacqueline Rush; ask her about the coat of arms. Listen to what Jacqueline Rush has to say about the coat of arms.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kenora, you don't have the floor.

Mr Gilchrist: I know the member opposite was accorded the respect of people listening to his comments. I would hope he would offer the same respect to the members on this side.

The bottom line, though, is that private members' hour is an important opportunity for members on both sides of the House to bring forward initiatives that aren't of the import of, say, some of the labour initiatives and education and health care. The backbenchers are not in a position to change that. What we are in a position to do is to reflect the values and the priorities of the people in our ridings, and the member for Lanark-Renfrew does that in spades when he brings forward this resolution.

The crown is the symbol of authority in our system of government, both in our parliamentary democracy and in the constitutional monarchy. The other augmentations proposed by the member will reflect the historical realities of this province and, as our colleague from Hamilton Centre just offered a few minutes ago, also incorporate a number of contemporary aspects of Ontario society as well.

The absence of a crown is a terrible oversight. Indeed, that Ontario has lagged behind other provinces is a fact that is to the credit of this member to have noticed and to have reflected in this resolution.

It's particularly fitting in this year, the 500th anniversary of the arrival of Giovanni Caboto, or John Cabot, as he's known in England, and the establishment of royal authority, the authority of the crown in Canada, that the member would be bringing forward this resolution and hopefully seeing it reflected in action by the Legislative Assembly.

The symbol of our crown is important. The coat of arms is important. I think this resolution goes a long way to incorporating in that coat of arms the very basis, the very underpinnings of all that we stand for in this chamber on both sides of the House. I would call on all members to put aside their political and partisan differences and reflect that reality by supporting the honourable member's resolution here today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I thank the member for Scarborough East for sharing the time. It's a pleasure to stand in support of ballot item 89 and the member for Lanark-Renfrew, Mr Jordan. I have the greatest respect for him and his dedication to the very theme we're discussing today. I just wanted to bring together a few little elements of the importance of this private member's resolution.

My riding of Durham East has a long tradition of being united behind many traditions of the country and its formation, for many years. The symbols we possess today as a country, as a province and as communities, and indeed as families, are very important. They're stressed or recognized by our flags, our colours and, as mentioned by one of the previous speakers, our flowers and animals. For us the flower is of course the trillium, recognized in 1937 as the symbol.

This is all about bringing forward the traditions that embrace and embellish not only this Legislature but indeed Canada, democracy and the Commonwealth and the special relationship we have with the crown sovereign of our country, the reigning Queen. I think it's very fitting and appropriate that we bring together the symbols and traditions, and I think Mr Jordan has done a remarkable job of researching those traditions and symbols and recognizing them by augmenting and completing our wonderful and beautiful coat of arms.

I'm wearing on my lapel, as most members do, the flag of Ontario, a stylized version, but it also has the coat of arms. I'd be pleased to wear the crown as the completion of our symbols of the province of Ontario. I'd urge every member to support Mr Jordan's resolution today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? There are 12 seconds left. If not, I recognize Mr Jordan for two minutes.

Mr Jordan: It's indeed a pleasure to have this opportunity to respond to some of the members who have shown an interest, first of all by coming here this morning and by taking time to provide their thoughts on this resolution.

As to the member for Kingston and The Islands, I was moved, if you will, by his concern about cost. That should not be a concern, because nothing will be changed until the present crests and correspondence and so on that we're using have to be replaced. That would not be changed; it's not affected. What you're telling me is that perhaps you didn't read all the research we sent. Lots of times, members don't have time to read that.

But I want to thank them very much that they do support it and see the value in it. When we go out on Remembrance Day in November, we don't go out to promote a conflict; we go out to honour those who gave us what we have. That is the thought behind bringing the crown to the crest of Ontario. In so doing, as the premiers come together shortly, we will then be co-sovereign with the federal government; we are, but it will be brought to light that we have certain sovereign rights within the sovereign nation.

As was pointed out, Quebec since 1939 has had the crown on theirs to recognize its special status relative to language, religion and common law. Going into the premiers' conference alone, I think it's valuable that we have brought this to the House.

I thank all my colleagues for their support.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

We will deal with ballot item number 89 standing in the name of Mr Jordan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Jordan has moved private member's resolution number 64. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT MAILING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, you will remember that yesterday we heard from various ministers about job programs they had created. They were congratulating themselves on the great number of programs they had created.

I had brought to my attention another piece of propaganda sent out by Mike Harris with a letter on June 19. It's Promises Made, Promises Kept: Two-year Major Milestones of the Harris Government. There is one constituent in my riding who was not impressed to receive this, Ms Jacqueline Rush, who was a former training consultant of the Ontario skills development office. She gets this beautiful handout about how the Harris government has created this number of jobs. She was laid off by the Harris government before receiving this package in the mail.

She took the June 19 letter and wrote to Mr Harris: "Thank you very much for all this information. You just overlooked the fact that you cut the funding to my program and laid me off at the beginning of May." She goes on to thank the Premier.

I would like to know what the Premier spent on sending out this propaganda to constituents across Ontario, how many he sent out, how many of these people found themselves in the same spot as Jacqueline Rush when they received it, not only to have been laid off but to have lost their program. I want the Premier to table those numbers and the amount this propaganda cost the Ontario taxpayers.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): When this Legislature was discussing Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, one of the concerns that was raised by both opposition parties was the issue of how the rules and their change would affect the willingness of citizens to dedicate the time and energy that's needed to have citizen control of school policy.

Indeed, we read this morning in the London Free Press -- the heading is, "School Reforms Scaring Off Some Would-be Trustees." Out of 99 incumbent trustees in the reformed school boards in London, Middlesex, Elgin and Oxford counties, only two have declared themselves willing to run under the rules. Why? Let me quote one of the current incumbents, who said: "It's just not worth it. All these changes drove me up the wall, but it was the disrespect the government has shown for trustees, educators and the whole system that really got to me. To be so devalued by the education ministry is like a slap in the face. It's demeaning, degrading and upsetting."

It is very important for the citizens of this province to have as their representatives on school boards people who are dedicated to the issue of education, and this government, with the changes it has made, is undermining that democratic process.

SWANSEA HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise today to offer congratulations to the Swansea Horticultural Society on their first-place finish in the cottage garden category at this year's Canadian National Exhibition garden contest.

In the four-year history of the Ontario Horticultural Association contest, the Swansea Horticultural Society has entered the past three years, placing second in 1995, third in 1996, and first place this year. Dave Money, the coordinator of the contest, stated that the judges felt the garden was more than deserving of its first-place finish.

The display was made up of black oak savannah native plants, which are on loan from the city of Toronto's High Park greenhouse, and trees from the city tree nursery. These plants and trees will be returned to the city to be planted after the close of the CNE in September.

The objective of the display is to educate people to the attractiveness of our native plants and grasses.

The Swansea Horticultural Society, located in the heart of my riding of High Park-Swansea, and just a few blocks away from historic High Park, will be celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. Formed in 1937 by gardeners in the great village of Swansea, it has survived and continues its traditions of planting and maintaining native plants at the Swansea Town Hall Community Centre.

My congratulations to Bill Roberts, president of the Swansea Horticultural Society, for planning and designing the basic elements of the display, and to Eugene Gallagher, who designed the water elements. Congratulations also to the other members of the team, Susan Drac, Olga Waszek, Maria Boylan, Marjorie McMullin, Courtney Jackson and Alec Gallagher.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Yesterday the government brought in rule changes to this Legislature. This set of measures is the most galling in that it attempts to undermine not just the opposition members but members of the public, who have a legitimate right to know what's going on with legislation.

What I've realized is that this government is doing that with just about every measure it takes. Its modus operandi is to ensure that no one can keep up with its agenda; to pass as much legislation as it can, bad legislation that it's attempting to hide from the public in an effort to move forward with another part of their agenda, which would then see them get through the next election with accolades from people right across this province.

You're not going to get away with it. These rule changes are part of that political imperative to ensure that the government can act with haste when it deals with the bad part of its agenda, its political agenda. We're not going to allow you to get away with that and the public isn't going to allow you to get with that, because it's anti-democratic. Quite honestly, people will catch up to you.

Isn't it ironic that your own backbenchers are saying you're going too fast, that this isn't going slow enough for people to be consulted. In fact, consultation is the cornerstone of our democracy.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday the Solicitor General released the fire marshal's report on the Plastimet fire in my home town, Hamilton. In fact, that fire was right in my riding and it affects the constituents I'm elected to represent here.

As far as the report goes, it's fine, but who knows if it goes far enough? We don't yet have all the facts and information on the table. But in that report, the fire marshal says early on, "Consequences may include immediate and long-term health outcomes for the general public and emergency responders." That's a serious statement, a serious indictment of this government's lack of response to those health concerns.

The Public Inquiries Act states as part of the requirement to hold a public inquiry that there be "a matter of public concern." I can't imagine a statement coming from an official as important as the fire marshal being more a matter of public concern than one that says there may be long-term health effects on the residents and the people who fought that fire.

You want to talk about public concern? Look at the headlines in the Hamilton Spectator that blaze across our porches every day: "116 Hospital Staff Ill After Fire." "Fire's Legacy Damning: 38% in Area Reported Being Sick." "Plastimet Fallout Threatens Water." There's no excuse at all for this government not to call a public inquiry, unless there's something they're afraid of.

HENLEY REGATTA SITE

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): On Friday, August 8, I was honoured to take

part in a ceremony at the Henley Regatta site in St Catharines. The event was held to dedicate seven shells, all doubles, to the Canadian rowing team.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank John and Norris Walker of Walker Industries for donating those shells. Their voluntarism and spirit of giving is so important to so many people and programs in the Niagara region.

All seven shells were dedicated to individual who worked tirelessly to ensure that the 1999 World Rowing Championships came to Ontario and the city of St Catharines. One, I discovered a day before the ceremony, was dedicated in my name, a very humbling experience, particularly knowing how the sport of rowing teaches our young people about team building, self-discipline and working together for the benefit of the team, a good example for all our communities, our province and our country.

Thanks also to the Premier and to the government for approving up to $1.5 million towards the cleanup of the Henley course, which, when combined with the contribution of other partners, all three levels of government and the community, was a prerequisite to winning the bid to hold the World Rowing Championships.

I, along with all Ontarians, look forward to welcoming the world to the city of St Catharines in 1999.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Time and time again I have raised the issue of the extreme injustice this government is committing against those in our province who live in island communities.

This government's decision to download to municipalities responsibility for operating and financing ferry services that link those islands to the mainland will have a devastating financial impact.

For example, taking on the responsibility will cost $5.8 million for the Howe and Wolfe islands ferries and $1.4 million for the Amherst Island ferry, a 400% to 800% tax increase. That decision alone leaves the islands facing eightfold property tax increases.

Now we have the estimated cost of police services, and just when the islanders thought things couldn't get worse, they did. Wolfe Island, for example, is told it's going to have to pay $154,000 for police services, which amounts to $197 per household. That seems a little steep considering that municipal officials estimate that on average, police visit the island about twice a month. That is about $6,000 per visit.

The islanders want to pay their fair share, but surely this is not fair. This is robbery. In the case of Howe Island, they're asked to pay $60,000 for police services. They have a total budget of $300,000. The police go there about once or twice a year, at a rate of about $20,000 a visit.

Mr Solicitor General, do the right thing.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Tonight at midnight the new rules take effect and the Harris government chalks up one more successful blow against democracy. These new rules mean the government can now ram through its destructive agenda at breakneck speed, passing bills before anybody has had a chance to really look at them. Our ability to debate legislation in this House has been seriously eroded. There will be far less debate and far less public scrutiny. That's not what democracy is about.

Where is the chorus of Ontarians crying out for faster legislation? I haven't heard it. Even that ever-diminishing group of Ontarians who generally support your agenda say you are going too fast, "Too much, too soon; slow it down and get it right." Even some of your backbenchers are telling you to slow down.

It's a slap in the face of some of your own caucus, to the opposition, to the media who monitor the goings-on here, but mostly it's a slap in the face of the people of Ontario who elected your government. Once again Mike Harris is not listening to what the people are telling him.

In conclusion, I want to read from a letter from a constituent, Mr Patrick Galvin, who lives in my riding. He says:

"We must always bear in mind that the privileges and rights of Parliament are ultimately the rights of the people. Let us never forget to be vigilant in defending these rights, because if we do not in the future, we may not have these rights and privileges to use."

FASTBALL TOURNAMENT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): This afternoon I have the pleasure of informing the members about an event to be held this weekend for the first time in Cobourg, Ontario. This event is a very special one as it is the third national Masters Fastball Tournament, to be held in this beautiful town.

Opening ceremonies to kick off the event will be held this evening, which include 14 masters teams from across Canada. The masters division is comprised of players who are age 37 and older, with pitchers required to be a minimum of 40. When I become of age, I hope to join.

The tournament is to be held in Cobourg at the Legion Fields Sports Complex, which has been hailed by many to be the best softball facility in Canada.

I extend my congratulations to the town of Cobourg, particularly Mr Bob Spooner, deputy reeve, and Mr Harry Jescke, manager of the Legion Fields Sports Complex, for working with the Canadian Amateur Softball Association to organize this exciting national event on such short notice. With only five months of preparation, where the average notice has been one to two years, there's been an extraordinary effort put forth by all those involved, including facilities staff, baseball players' spouses and many volunteers. With such commitment and top-notch competitors, this weekend is sure to be an unqualified success.

Attending this premier national tournament is definitely an excellent reason to plan for a visit to Cobourg this weekend, and we certainly extend very best wishes for great weather for the upcoming weekend.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CHILD PROTECTION

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): We are committed in this government to improving the lives of children in this province, so I'm pleased today to inform the House that there are going to be two independent reviews of the child protection system in Ontario. These reviews are the next in a series of steps that we are taking to reform the child protection system.

An independent review will be undertaken of a random sampling of child abuse and neglect cases in all 55 children's aid societies in the province. In addition, an external review will be conducted by an independent consultant on how the ministry is meeting its responsibilities under the Child and Family Services Act.

We know there are problems with the child protection system; we know from the coroners' inquests, the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force, the front-line workers, the children's aid societies. These two reviews, these two additional steps, are going to give us the specific data we need to help correct those problems.

While a process exists to monitor how each children's aid society meets with ministry standards, this review is a significant departure from the past. It marks the first time that the review will be conducted by independent experts as well as staff, and also the review will include child neglect cases as well as child abuse cases.

The review of the children's aid societies will examine the case files for compliance with ministry standards and make recommendations for improvement. If necessary, each society will be required by the ministry to take corrective action. These findings will be used to develop steps that can be taken province-wide to improve the child protection system in Ontario.

The external review that's being conducted by an independent consultant on the ministry is going to look at how we can improve how the ministry manages and monitors the child protection system. This review is going to result in recommendations to improve the ministry's policies and our organizational responsibilities. Both reviews will be completed by the end of the year.

We have welcomed the comprehensive and constructive recommendations made by the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force and the inquests that have been held over the last several months. We are taking a step-by-step approach to improve the child protection system by implementing those recommendations pertaining to the ministry.

The steps already taken include $45 million allocated for more intervention and prevention programs; an additional $15 million from the government's spring budget to help protect vulnerable children; a mandatory risk assessment system for use by the children's aid societies across the province; a computer database to link all children's aid societies across Ontario; and additional resources for training.

We are also going to establish a panel of experts to examine the child protection issues in the legislation, the Child and Family Services Act. We will also work with professional organizations to raise their awareness about the requirement for them to report child abuse and neglect.

I want to make sure that the ministry is doing what it can to protect children in this province. These initiatives and the others we will take will help reform the system to do this. I invite my colleagues from across the floor, along with the others who have been involved in child protection, to continue working together with us to improve the lives of children in this province.

In closing, I'd like to add that I had the opportunity to meet with the board members of the children's aid association yesterday, and I must say I was pleased with their commitment and cooperation. That relationship between them and their agencies and the ministry is helping the system improve, and I look forward to continuing that relationship in the future as we take additional steps.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Today the government will be tabling amendments to Bill 99, the Workers' Compensation Reform Act.

The standing committee on resources development recently concluded 10 days of public hearings in Toronto, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Windsor, London, Cambridge, Burlington and Kingston. During that time, more than 140 groups and individuals appeared before the committee and about 150 submissions were received.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who participated in the deliberations and I also want to thank the many groups and individuals who took the time to provide their input. The government listened to the very useful advice provided by injured workers and their spouses, employees, employers and medical experts during these hearings across Ontario.

In response we are proposing changes that reflect the most current knowledge and practices in injury prevention and workplace compensation.

First, our proposed changes will ensure that research is immediately targeted towards the pressing issue of chronic pain while compensation for injured workers suffering from chronic pain will continue.

Second, we are introducing amendments that will introduce a limited policy audit function for the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. Under certain circumstances this will permit WCAT to refer policy issues back to the Workers' Compensation Board for review within 60 days. WCAT will continue to be bound by WCB policy.

Third, we are introducing changes to clarify return to work and labour market re-entry provisions of Bill 99 in order to ensure that injured workers are returned to work in a safe and timely manner.

In a moment, my colleague the minister responsible for seniors issues, and formerly the minister responsible for workers' compensation, will provide details with regard to an additional amendment which will significantly impact the benefits of seniors.

Bill 99 represents the final step in the complete overhaul of the workers' compensation system. When it is fully implemented, it will strengthen the board's pivotal role in preventing injury and illnesses in our workplaces.

This legislation will fulfil one of this government's key commitments and contribute to a climate of economic growth and job creation. It will also lead to a significant reduction in the human, social and economic costs of workplace injury and illness. It will result in a fully funded system that is sensitive to the needs of injured workers and sustainable by the employers who fund the system and create the jobs.

We are looking forward to presenting this bill to the Legislature this fall for third reading and implementing the new act effective January 1, 1998.

SURVIVORS' BENEFITS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): It gives me great pleasure to join my colleague the Minister of Labour in proposing an initiative worth over $135 million to some of the most vulnerable members of Ontario society.

Members will be aware that lifetime workers' compensation pensions are paid to the widows and widowers of persons killed in workplace accidents in our province. However, widows and widowers remarried prior to 1985 had their pensions cut off upon remarriage. They received a lump sum payout equivalent to two years' benefits and nothing else.

The act was amended in 1985 to protect the benefits of widows and widowers who remarried after the April 1, 1985, date. However, the 1985 amendments failed to remove the unfair penalty imposed on widows and widowers who had already remarried. This government is committed to a workers' compensation that operates on principles of fairness and protection of the most vulnerable. The arbitrary 1985 cutoff rule meets neither test.

This afternoon the government will be tabling a further amendment to Bill 99, one that would restore the benefits lost by widows and widowers who remarried prior to 1985.

This amendment, if approved by the committee and ultimately by this Legislature, will allow widows and widowers to have their lost benefits reinstated retroactively to 1985. The Workers' Compensation Board estimates that this amendment would provide widows and widowers: $95 million in lost benefits; in addition, $40 million in future benefits.

Allow me to recognize the special contributions of injured workers support groups, and in particular Ms Muriel Poster of Thunder Bay. Ms Poster raised the issue of survivor benefits during my consultations last year and again during the Bill 99 committee hearing process.

Others who have continued to press the issue of survivor benefits include Morag Connelly of the Oakville

section of the Injured Workers Support Group and groups like Senior Link who represent and work with seniors in need, who are in the House with us this afternoon.

In speaking with Lillian Morgenthau of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons this afternoon, she said: "Widows and widowers are the most vulnerable group in our society. We applaud the government for listening and correcting this injustice."

Members will also want to recognize the personal support and leadership in this initiative that has been shown by the chair of the WCB, Glen Wright, and my colleague the Minister of Labour and her parliamentary assistant, Bart Maves. I urge all members to support this important amendment to Bill 99 and to join in redressing unfair treatment of widows and widowers that has continued for far too long in the province of Ontario.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister today made a great show and tells us that in her heart of hearts, she is deeply concerned about Ontario's children.

I have more than a few questions to put to her today on behalf of Ontario's children. As the minister ultimately responsible for the welfare of children in this province, here are some of the questions: Where were you when your government decided to cut welfare rates by 22%? Where were you when 500,000 Ontario children were affected in a very direct way by those cuts? Where were you when they decided to get rid of junior kindergarten in the province so that now this September we will have 60,000 Ontario children deprived of junior kindergarten?

JK, as the minister well knows, is, among many other things, an opportunity for kids to be brought into the system, for teachers to get a look at them, to assess them, to find out if there are any problems and to begin to address those problems.

Minister, when you were at the cabinet table and the Premier said, "We need $5.5 billion to pay for our tax cut," why didn't you say, "You can get it from other ministries, but you're not going to get it from Ontario's kids and you're not going to get it from Ontario's children's aid societies"?

Children's aid societies have responded in the only way they could. They let go 340 case workers. You are now purporting to do a review to tell you what the problems are. We already know, by and large, what those problems are. We had the report of the Ontario Child Mortality Task Force, the final report that came out in July of this year, and it stated in part: "The review of workloads throughout children's aid societies indicates that the system is operating beyond its capacity. Sufficient time and support must be made available for effective interventions to be designed and delivered."

They are saying that they are understaffed, that they are overworked and that they are underfunded. What you have done is you have contributed to that problem in a very real way by cutting $17 million from Ontario's children's aid societies. What I'm asking you on behalf of Ontario's kids is, when are you going to start to do your job? When are you going to stand up for them?

When are you going to tell other people at the cabinet table that in the grand scheme of things, if we can't get it right with the kids, we're screwing up our future and that it's your responsibility and if they won't allow you to bring forward those kinds of initiatives on behalf of Ontario's kids, that you're not going to stand for it, that you're going to go public because you feel you have a solemn responsibility and obligation to Ontario children?

Minister, you will know that I have put together a task force, together with my caucus, and we are travelling the province and we are picking up the last few titbits of information that are necessary before we move forward on this issue. I will be bringing those to this Legislature. They will be solid and substantive, and I will be expecting you to act on behalf of Ontario's children.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I would like to address the comments to the Minister of Labour and the minister responsible for seniors. First of all, it is interesting to follow the parade of announcements to show a kinder, gentler face. The indications, by what you have said today, indicate somewhat of an improvement. I hope these aren't the only three amendments that the government plans to put forward. We expect there will be hundreds because the bill is a large one, 102 pages, plus many things to deal with.

If, as the minister says, you have truly, truly listened, you would have heard the message loud and clear that the issue of chronic pain that you talk about -- you're just saying you are going to do research on it -- conclusively, beyond the normal healing time, is a major, major problem and leads to unfairness.

SURVIVORS' BENEFITS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): On the issue of dealing with seniors or people who have lost their spouses, you say you're restoring the benefits fully, which to me would mean it would go back to 90% of the benefits, which was in the original bill; and that you would also deal with the deindexing formula, which as you know in Bill 99 is cut again from what it is in the present existing bill, so that would return to three quarters of what the factor is. If you're serious about this, I hope you will have listened to Muriel Poster and her concerns that the restoration be just and fair.

It is not just for her but also for many others around the province. I know you know that there would perhaps be a pending legal action, as there was in British Columbia recently in which the widows of deceased workers won their case. I look forward to the amendments and to look at the specifics, and I hope you come forward with many more.

CHILD PROTECTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): In response to the Minister of Community and Social Services, whenever you make a statement that takes a step forward for children, you know I will be there supporting you. But I've got to tell you, today I'm reminded of someone who is running frantically to and fro trying to plug the leaks when it was your own gang of friends who set off the explosives that created the cracks in the first place.

I don't think your government gets it. I don't think you understand some of the measures you've put in place and the consequences for children in this province. That has left you and your ministry, with the children's aid society, desperately trying to meet a growing demand, which is impossible when you've had resources taken away from you. Let me just remind you that your first step in terms of cutting social assistance touched the lives of half a million children in this province and their families and created much greater stress on those families.

Take a look at the way in which, unfortunately, your government moved ahead at breakneck speed and bungled your reforms to the family support plan and how that left families without payments and in crisis, under more stress. Take a look at what's happening here in Metro, the fastest-growing population. In our shelters right now are children under the age of five, homeless. Think of this. At a time when we're hearing stories about refugees coming from Czechoslovakia and there's not enough room in the shelters, it's because we have 1,800 homeless families in those shelters right now.

The result of that and many of the other things your ministry has done has put such stress on families. It has created a greater population at risk.

I spoke with an executive director of the children's aid society recently who told me that they used to identify reasons for the families they were dealing with in categories, like that there might have been alcohol abuse or substance abuse, or there may have been physical abuse in the family or a history of it. The greatest reason now is inability to cope, families with the inability to cope. That's directly as a result of some of the actions of your government.

Minister, these are tools, and tools are good and important, but if you don't have the workers to pick up the tools and use them, the work can't get done. You have created an increase in demand for children's aid services in this province as a result of your action. In the last year it has gone up by 10%. We have lost 340 workers from the system. You have cut the front-line money. It's breaking. It's bursting at the seams. The system can't cope. You have got step in and change that, because more kids are at risk and government has less ability to deal with it.

This is a crisis. You can't keep putting Band-Aids on it. You say you want to work with us. I have offered select committees. I have offered all sorts of ways of working with you. You haven't taken me up on it. Get serious. Let's put children first in reality, not just in rhetoric.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to respond to the comments of the Minister of Labour and minister without portfolio. I first of all acknowledge how ironic that it's the Bonnie and Clyde of WCB destruction who stood in their places today to talk about fairness; in their comments they speak of fairness. Hell, this government took the word "fair" out of WCB, the same as you did with the Ontario Labour Relations Act. You don't know anything about fairness; you just know about taking care of your pals.

This statement today goes on to talk about how you care about the most vulnerable. Bull. What happened was that you had so many people at those public hearings that you had to respond to at least a couple of issues. This is a victory for those injured workers who came out in the dead of summer to fight you and publicly proclaim their opposition to what you're doing. It's got nothing to do with what you think about the most vulnerable.

Let's take a look at what you're not doing. You're not changing the fact that 5% of the net income of injured workers is taken away. You're not doing anything about the fact that $6 billion of that money is going to your corporate pals as a refund, as a gift. You're still taking away 50% of the contribution of money into the injured workers' pension plan, and you say you care about the most vulnerable.

You're still eliminating the Occupational Disease Panel. You say in here that what you're doing will contribute to a reduction in the human, social and economic costs of workplace. Bull. What it's going to do is reduce the number of reported injuries, because fewer people will qualify, fewer people will be allowed to meet the time limits, more people will be intimidated in terms of putting in claims. That's what this is all about. You're going to make the stats look good while the injured workers sit out there on the social scrap heap and suffer. Then you stand in here and have the audacity to say that you care.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you announced with great fanfare today that you are about to do something which you believe to be in the interests of Ontario's children. I want to come back to this issue of $17 million which I have raised countless times in this Legislature. You can't get off the hook on this one.

The $17 million resulted in the loss of 340 case workers in our children's aid societies. The Ontario Child Mortality Task Force says we have a number of problems, and one of those certainly is the fact that we are understaffed when it comes to having enough people on the front line who can go into homes, make assessments and do whatever is necessary to protect children. There was all kinds of evidence at coroners' inquests themselves which related how some of the problems connected there were related to the fact that CAS is understaffed.

Do you not feel that the appropriate measure to take immediately is to restore that funding of $17 million?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question from the honourable member. If all we were doing to respond to the 122 recommendations that have come forward from those very thorough task forces was the two things we announced today, I could understand his concerns and his frustration. But that is not all we are doing. There are a whole series of things that we are doing because there are a whole series of recommendations that have been made, not only to us but to the children's aid societies.

We know we have to make these changes, and I make no apologies for taking a step-by-step approach. We want to make sure that what is happening will actually assist and we want to make sure that the workers are there, they've got the tools they need.

As for the money that he keeps harping on, throwing money at the system has been the way everyone has always solved the problem. If it's money he wants to talk about, and he keeps talking about $17 million, well, I would like to throw back to him the $60 million that we have invested and put forward for intervention and prevention and to assist in responding to those recommendations.

Mr McGuinty: The minister just doesn't get it. There is no substitute for having people, caring workers, on the front lines in Ontario who can go in, find out where the problems are and take the corrective action, whatever that might be. There is simply no substitute for that.

We have countless kinds of evidence before us now that we are underfunded. Our care workers are working too long and they're not being able to get all the work done. You've got to address that fact in the most immediate way, and the only way to do that is to restore that funding. How you could have allowed the Premier to take $17 million away from our children's aid societies is beyond me. But you can stand up right now and you can correct that and say, "I commit immediately to restoring that $17 million." Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: There are many people on the front lines in this child welfare system. What they don't need is another great, grand task force like our honourable member has. He says, "We have the recommendations." He says, "We know what needs to be done." If that is the case, then why is he out conducting this great, grand task force that he has going?

We have recommendations; we know what needs to be done. Today we announced two more steps in responding to that because we recognize that system has to be fixed to better protect those children.

The other thing we think is very important -- and again if he has listened to what has happened with the recommendation and what the experts are saying -- is that one of the ways we have to relieve the pressure on those children's aid societies and those workers who are doing those jobs is to do more for intervention and prevention so families don't end up at children's aid, so kids don't end up falling through the cracks.

Mr McGuinty: Fifty-six Ontario children were murdered in the last two years. The majority of those kids were under the age of three. The inquests have pointed to the fact time and time again that we aren't doing enough in this province to care for our kids, and they point time and time again to the fact that there are simply not enough people on the front lines to make the necessary inquiries and to take the necessary steps to ensure that we're protecting our kids.

You can dance around this as long as you want, but at the end of the day, after you have four months of review and where we now know that about 20 kids a day are the subject of abuse in Ontario -- at least 20 kids a day -- you can count the numbers for yourself and tell me how many children will have been abused or will have been the subject of neglect while you fiddle.

Minister, once again, $17 million: Will you return that to its rightful owners, the CAS in this province so they can do the work on behalf of Ontario kids?

Hon Mrs Ecker: We are putting $60 million into helping improve our child welfare and our intervention and prevention programs out there. Yes, resources are part of the response. That's why we have put that money forward, but so is training, so are better data, so is a better risk-assessment tool. Those also are the recommendations that have been put forward to this government; so also is improving the standards, improving the ministry's response to how children's aid societies work. We have been quite prepared to take those steps.

I continue to be prepared to take those steps, and I congratulate the children's aid societies for the work they are doing, not only out there on the front lines but with this ministry and with this government, to fix the system. That's what we should be doing, fixing the system. That's what we are doing.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. You will know that some time ago now we had a very serious fire in the Hamilton area. Thousands of people were living in the immediate vicinity. The fire took place some few short blocks away from homes. You will know that we have been pressing for an inquiry in this matter and we believe it's important to get to the bottom of this issue, to find out a number of things related to the cause of the fire, the role your ministry played or did not play and the outcome to the people who have been affected by the fire.

I want to begin by asking you a very simple question: Why did it take 11 hours, 11 full hours, for that piece of equipment, which I understand is the only one we have in the province which properly analyses the air and helps us assess whether or not neighbours in the immediate vicinity ought to be evacuated, to get from wherever it was in this province -- and this falls under the responsibility of your ministry, clearly -- to the site to make an assessment as to whether or not the people living in the immediate vicinity ought to be evacuated?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think the Leader of the Opposition should know that the response to a fire is done in terms of the stages of the seriousness and the recognition of the seriousness of that fire. My officials were on the site about an hour after the fire started. At that point in time they started to advise the fire chief and the medical officer of health of the contents of the plant and give them advice as to what the firefighters could expect in terms of the smoke and inhalation problems they might have.

About two hours past that, the emergency 2 vehicle was put in place and was onsite and started to take samples of the air. They produced those samples by about 11:30. At about 11:50, 10 minutes before midnight my officials decided to call the TAGA truck, which was in Toronto at that time. They had to get together the staff, they had to calibrate it. They were onsite at 5:30, five and a half hours after they were called.

Mr McGuinty: The bottom line here is that it took 11 hours for a piece of equipment that your officials believed was essential to make an assessment of the environmental risk and the risk to the health of the people living nearby to get to the site.

I do not believe that is acceptable, and that is one of the reasons why we are calling for a public inquiry. I think we owe it to the firefighters who were called upon, at risk, to fight this fire, who are demanding a public inquiry, that we have such an inquiry. I think we owe it to the people of the city of Hamilton, whose municipal council has by way of a resolution asked for an inquiry. I think we ought to have that inquiry. There are a number of community groups the minister would be well aware of who are also asking for an inquiry.

We have to find out the answer to a number of questions, including, why did it take so long to get that piece of equipment to the site? How many other sites would there be potentially in this province now which would place other communities at risk? Minister, once again, will you have the inquiry?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I indicated, the emergency response does not require that this particular piece of equipment be in place at any fire across Ontario. There are two such TAGA trucks, which cost over $1 million apiece, that are manned by very skilled technicians and are located at different places in the province and have different functions when they're not called in an emergency situation.

There was a decision at 10 to 12 to call this truck into place. At that time of the night, of course, many of the people who would operate this truck, very skilled people, were all over the place and it was necessary to collect them. They started to collect them about 1 o'clock in the morning and they were there at 5:30. I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think that leads to a call for an inquiry.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Minister, you must be the only person in this province who believes that your ministry's response to the fire was adequate. Maybe you should ask the over 100 firefighters who suffered health effects as a result of the fire if they believe it was adequate. Maybe you should ask the 116 staff at Hamilton Civic Hospital who suffered health effects. Maybe you should ask the 38% of the residents who reported health effects from the fire if your response was adequate. Frankly, it was inadequate.

You don't have all the answers, we don't expect you to have all the answers, but that is why we are asking for a public inquiry. You owe it. You yourself said: "I have nothing to fear from a public inquiry. I have nothing to fear from how my ministry responded." Those were your words, Minister.

Very clearly you have a responsibility to live up to that commitment. That report yesterday was damning because it talked about the long-term and short-term health effects to the residents of Hamilton, to the firefighters and emergency. You owe it to those folks. Will you stand in your place today and recommend to the Solicitor General that he immediately call a public inquiry into the Ministry of Environment's response to the fire?

Hon Mr Sterling: I've said in the past that I'm not frightened of an inquiry. I believe that my officials acted promptly. Some of them worked for 26, 28 hours straight. The Ministry of Environment labs worked night and day to get the results back speedily.

The report is to the Solicitor General. It would be within the Solicitor General's ambit to make that kind of decision, so I now refer this question to him.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Christopherson: I want to continue with the issue of the Plastimet fire in the north end of my riding in downtown Hamilton.

Minister, you will know that the report that came from the fire marshal's office yesterday says, "Consequences may include immediate and long-term health outcomes for the general public and emergency responders."

You've already heard from my Hamilton colleague that there are 116 hospital staff, there are over 250 firefighters. We know there are concerns about toxins being leached into the water. These are environmental issues which stand the serious possibility, according to the fire marshal, of having adverse health effects on the citizens in my community

Minister, I want you to stand in your place, if you're so cocksure there's nothing to worry about, and give an ironclad guarantee to every one of the residents in my community that there's absolutely no chance of any long-term health effects as a result of that environmental disaster.

Hon Mr Sterling: The function of the Ministry of Environment is to provide information -- scientific, technical information -- to your medical officer of health. The medical officer of health makes the decision whether there are short-term or long-term medical effects with regard to the surrounding population, which is her primary concern, and she made her decision on whether to evacuate or not to evacuate on the basis of that information.

You might speak to the medical officer of health with regard to her

interpretation of the data. Her

interpretation of the data which we provided was that there were not long-term health effects to the people of Hamilton as a result of this fire. That was --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you're not listening and you're also abdicating your responsibility. The people in my community, all the people I've mentioned, are looking to you and your colleagues in cabinet to do the right thing, and it's frustrating as hell from the viewpoint of Hamilton to see you stand here and stonewall day after day and abdicate your responsibilities.

The Public Inquiries Act threshold states "declared to be a matter of public concern." Last week there was a report that a survey done showed 85% of the respondents, who were not associated with any environmental group, were sceptical about environmental results coming out of your ministry officials. Further to that, 500 people who came out to a public meeting came away more angry than when they came in, because they didn't get the answers they want.

Minister, I call on you to do the right thing. I join with my colleague; this is not a partisan issue. Will you recommend to cabinet that there be a public inquiry? Because if you don't do it today you're ultimately going to do it.

Hon Mr Sterling: We were concerned, of course, with the health effects on the people of Ontario. As the member knows, I visited the site the day after the fire started and talked to my people on the site, and to the fire chief and the medical officer of health. We were concerned always with the information flow and that's why we provided information at the meeting the member refers to. We have also set up a public information trailer, along with the medical officer of health, right in the area, so that citizens can in fact get real information, not from politicians but from scientists and technologists who know what they're talking about.

The environmental results which my ministry was producing -- they took over some 3,000 tests in order to assure the citizens that they could make certain these were correct and true.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: My ministry took the unprecedented step, through Lillian Ross, to give the community $40,000 --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, frankly, I'm stunned that you continue to take this fire so lightly. Do you remember the Hagersville fire, the tire fire that happened when the Liberals were in power? Well, that fire was small potatoes compared to this fire.

PVC is a dangerous toxic substance. It is unlike any other plastic because when it burns it gives off dioxins and furans which are dangerous to human health. There is no question about that, there is no doubt about it. The serious possibility of long-term health effects is a proven fact. The fire wasn't even treated as a dangerous chemical fire at the beginning.

There are some very serious problems here. We want to make sure it doesn't happen again and you're not taking this seriously. We need an inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened, to look at the long-term health effects on the people of Hamilton. Minister, will you commit to that today?

Hon Mr Sterling: I know that environmental issues and the outflows from disasters like this are very, very serious, and the community of course has many, many questions. I believe that as a responsible Minister of Environment I should believe my scientists, I should believe my technicians, particularly when they have gone to the ends of the earth to provide these results in a timely manner, who have done excellent work. They are, in my view, beyond criticism in terms of what they have done in terms of the work they have provided. They have provided that evidence to the medical officer of health, who makes the decision as to what or what is not a long-term health effect.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I've cautioned the member for Hamilton East on a number of occasions. You have to come to order; I won't caution you again. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: I consider this a serious matter. We have in fact done everything. Nobody has brought any hard evidence to me that there is a problem with the scientific data, that there is a problem with the response times, that there is a problem with anything with regard to that. The medical officer of health has made a statement that there is not a long-term health problem with this. I must accept her professional advice.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Starting this Sunday the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will be meeting here in Toronto. Municipal councillors from across Ontario, including members of the government party, are getting more and more frustrated with the government's attempt to download more than $1.2 billion in new costs on to their property taxpayers. What really sticks in their craw is the assertion by this minister that the deal is so good the municipalities should be able to cut their taxes.

Minister, you will be speaking to the conference of the municipalities. Will you use the opportunity to admit you were wrong and that your plan will mean tax hikes and service cuts to municipal ratepayers across the province?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member of the third party, yes, I will be speaking to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on Monday, and I will assure them that the trade of service delivery between the municipalities and the province of Ontario should not result in a tax increase to municipalities across the province.

There are obviously some municipalities that are going to fare better than others in this tradeoff, and we recognize that. That's why we've set up a municipal restructuring fund of $570 million to assist those municipalities through a transition period, probably between now and the year 2000, to balance their budgets. We recognize that. We recognized that right from the start and we've said that repeatedly, that we know that some municipalities in the province are going to require assistance and we're going to be there to provide that assistance. That's what I'll be telling the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on Monday.

Mr Wildman: That so-called contingency fund has been spent by every minister in this government when they've talked to municipal leaders across the province.

The government argues that the download is revenue-neutral, but when the minister speaks about this he has left out the biggest download of them all: the elimination of the $660-million municipal support grant. Minister, will you admit that the elimination of this $660-million unconditional grant will mean that municipal taxpayers will face either significant tax hikes, despite your contingency fund, or service cuts?

Hon Mr Leach: I have much more faith in the municipalities than that. We told the municipalities in 1995 that the days of high spending and tax increases were over, that this government was going to get its financial house in order and that we needed their assistance to do it. The municipal block grant used to be about $1.5 million. We told them in 1995 that would be reduced to $900 million. We told them in 1996 it was reduced to $667 million. I told them very clearly at the convention last year that grant would be eliminated this year. They're all aware of that.

All of them -- very responsible municipal politicians -- should have, if they have not, taken that into consideration when they were preparing their 1998 budget.

We were very up front with the municipalities. We told them exactly what we were going to do. All the municipalities at the AMO conventions over the last two years told us they recognized we had to get the financial shape of the --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Wildman: This minister has finally admitted that the download is not revenue-neutral. He says he told them about it, but he doesn't count it in his figures when he calculates that it's revenue-neutral.

In my area, Algoma district, your download, not counting the download of provincial highways to municipalities, works out to an estimated increase of $1,000 per household across Algoma district. All across the north it's the same, despite the fact your colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines has told representatives of the small municipalities he doesn't have time to meet with them at the AMO conference. It's across the whole north. Everywhere people are going to pay more, between $700 and $1,200 per household, because of your government's download. Tell these people it's revenue-neutral. Tell them they won't have to raise taxes.

Will you back up your promise that it's revenue-neutral with cash? Will you commit to $1.2 billion in annual grants --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Leach: I wish the member opposite would listen, because I said right at the very beginning that we recognize there are some municipalities that are going to have a shortfall in the short term. That is why we have set up $570 million in a municipal restructuring fund to assist those municipalities -- there may be some municipalities in the member's riding, and there quite probably are -- and we would be there to provide that assistance to them.

I have a whole lot more faith in the municipalities to deal with this. We told them in 1995 that we were cutting a substantial amount of the municipal block grant. The municipalities responded with no tax increase. They responded in 1996 with no tax increase. The candidate running for mayor of Toronto has indicated he has examined the effect on the new city of Toronto and is confident there will be no tax increase. The member from Ottawa who is running for regional chair says he's examined the effects of the separation of services and is confident there will be no tax increase. Most municipalities can deal with that --

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, the minister who's responsible for promoting tourism in this province and who is well connected to the corporate captains of Ontario.

As thousands of tourists visit Ontario this week, they will be confronted with the same circumstances facing all motorists in our province: gas price gouging by the major oil companies. When I have asked you to intervene on behalf of consumers in this province in the past, you have jumped to the defence of the oil giants who are today demanding as high as 65.9 cents a litre in parts of southern Ontario, and more in the north. Are you going to continue to apologize for the big oil bosses who are ripping off both tourists and Ontario residents or are you finally going to call them on the carpet and demand they cease gouging motorists in this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): The guys in the limos don't have to pay extra gas money.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Parkdale, order. Government members, come to order, please.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'd like to thank the member for his question. I thought the graphics were very nice, although I think they broke the rules.

As a government, we share the same concerns you have about high gasoline prices. It's not a new problem; in fact it's a recurring problem. I might say, as I've said before, I think you should take this matter up with your Ottawa counterparts.

I know my colleague Mr Norm Sterling, the Minister of Environment and Energy, is monitoring these prices, and his ministry is working with the federal government to protect consumers from any sort of collusion.

In terms of Ontario's competitiveness, I should say that our gasoline prices remain significantly lower than those in the countries of Ontario's overseas tourist markets.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Saunderson: You can read the answer in Hansard if you don't want to listen. I would like to emphasize again that our prices are competitive with our major tourist countries around the world.

Mr Bradley: I was hoping that the minister, who has considerable business experience and connections with the business community, would be able to call these corporate giants on the carpet and tell them you disapprove.

But there's a longer-term problem. Independent gasoline retailers in this province bring at least some semblance of competition to the market, but, as is the case with consumers, are victims of the pricing policies of major oil companies. Other provincial jurisdictions in the country and state jurisdictions in the United States have taken action to prevent predatory pricing practices by the oil giants, practices which drive independent retailers out of business and eliminate any competition for the powerful oil companies.

Are you now prepared to introduce legislation to define predatory pricing as an offence under Ontario law; that is, a bill to prevent the major oil companies from undercutting, from selling at one price to independent operators and then charging less than that price in their own stations and thereby putting the independents out of business? That's within your jurisdiction. That's within your realm. Are you prepared to announce in the House today that you're prepared to introduce such legislation?

Hon Mr Saunderson: In response to the supplementary question, I think from the tone of the question I should refer it to my colleague Mr Tsubouchi.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, I want to add to what my colleague has said, that ensuring fair competition is the responsibility of the federal government. Mr Bradley may laugh at this, but certainly when you look at the past Hansard reports, it's quite similar to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

There were past indications when Mr Kwinter was in this seat and when Mr Laughren was the Treasurer that they attempted to come to grips with this answer. By and large, this is a federal matter. My colleague and predecessor in this portfolio wrote to Mr Manley, in his capacity as Minister of Industry, indicating his concern. What have we done? I have had the opportunity to meet with the independent gas brokers and sat down and tried to have a discussion on this issue. This particular matter will likely be coming up in the interprovincial ministers' conference next month.

It certainly was put on the table by some of the Atlantic provinces. Therefore, we'll be having a discussion on this at the conference coming up to find some sort of harmonized idea to deal with the federal government on this. Once again, this is a federal issue.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like to return to the announcement you made today, actually to some of the answers you've given to previous questions.

I could spend time debating with you the reality of some of the things you have said about where you have shifted your spending, but I want to put that aside. Let me just respond to your words. You said that you really believe in prevention, putting money in up front and trying to prevent the problem, that that's a really important and significant investment for you. I would dispute how that's being done, but I agree with those words. I think that's important.

But I have to say to you that right now at the other end, at the end where we're intervening and working with children, there is plenty of evidence, and the task force report states it as well, that the growth in caseload, 10% in the last year alone, and the fewer workers, means that the system is operating beyond its capacity right now.

I'm not asking you to throw money at things, but I am asking you to acknowledge a problem. Would you agree that caseload is a problem right now for CAS workers?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I understand that the task force has certainly talked about caseloads. One of the things we are looking at in the funding and in the reviews of how the ministry is responding and how the children's aid societies are responding across the province is how to improve the ability of those front-line workers to handle the caseload. Are there things we can do through the database, are there things we can do through the training that will help them? There are many steps we will be taking as we get that feedback from the experts as they give us the recommendations.

Ms Lankin: I want to quote a couple of things to you. First of all, from the task force report: "The review of workloads throughout children's aid societies indicates that the system is operating beyond its capacity."

If you had been listening at another point in time over a year ago, almost two years ago, the Association of Children's Aid Societies told the standing committee on social development here, when we were looking at children's issues, that almost half the children's aid societies would be under severe stress once the full impact was felt of the government cutbacks implemented in 1996. They had serious concerns about the societies' ability to function effectively and legally.

I hope all the new tools, the computer system, the risk assessment system -- I hope all those things mean that in the future caseloads can be managed better. Right now, there is 10% more demand this year than last year, there are 340 fewer workers, and more kids at risk. In all the steps you're taking I'll support you, but only if you address the most fundamental of needs: We need enough case workers to make sure that kids are not at risk.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the comments of the honourable member. Certainly we are looking at the entire system. Certainly caseload and staff members -- how many are there, what they're doing, how they do it and how they are supported -- has to be part of this review. We recognize that those front-line workers out there, who are giving of themselves in ways that I think very few of us fully appreciate until you have the opportunity to meet and talk with them, need more support. That's why we're taking the steps we're taking.

Do we need to do more than what has been announced to date? Absolutely. I agree, and that's why we will.

NATURAL GAS SUPPLIERS

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In my riding of York-Mackenzie and across the province, MPPs are hearing complaints about the questionable business practices of some natural gas brokers. These complaints are coming from consumers --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That must be federal.

Mr Klees: Well, they're coming from consumers as well as a number of companies that are legitimately carrying on business as natural gas brokers.

While the option to choose where to purchase your natural gas is a legitimate option for consumers in Ontario, it seems that a number of salespeople are appearing at the door and representing themselves as representatives of their local utility, Consumers' Gas or Union Gas. Minister, I think it's important that consumers know what the minister is doing to ensure that they're protected against these kinds of sales practices.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for York-Mackenzie for the question. Yes, I am concerned about the number of complaints the ministry is receiving with respect to this. In fact not only that, but I'm sure many of us here have personally experienced how annoying it is to have someone come to your door, not explain who they are, what the product they're selling is or the terms of whatever the contract is. The complaints have revolved around poor disclosure of details and misleading statements and failure to really explain the conditions of any types of proposed rebates.

I have written to the chair of the direct purchase industry committee. I've outlined my concerns to him and also indicated to him that we will ensure compliance with the Business Practices Act. Consumers should be aware that this type of practice is covered under the Business Practices Act, which prohibits unfair business practices, including false, misleading and deceptive representations to consumers.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly, if the industry itself will not take the measures to protect consumers and inform them, we will.

Mr Klees: Minister, I'm glad to hear you're taking that initiative. I think it is important for the people of this province to recognize that there is a legitimate forum within which they can choose alternative suppliers. It's important that they also know that the government is going to take whatever initiatives it needs to take if in fact the industry is not going to do that. Is there anything that individual consumers can do to protect themselves?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There are a number of measures that the consumer can take. Certainly they should remember that the savings apply only to the gas supply charge, which is about one third of the total gas bill, and the savings will fluctuate with changes in the market prices of gas. It's important for them to know whom they're dealing with. The agents who are going are representing independent businesses and are not associated with the government and certainly not with the major gas utilities. It's very important for them to inform themselves and to read the fine print before signing things.

I can tell the consumer this: We fully expect that the industry itself will take some measures to address these complaints, because it is in their best interests to do so. But if they do not, our government will take swift measures to make sure we clean up this confusion for consumers and make sure we protect consumers across the province.

FUND-RAISING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and it has to do with activities out of your office regarding fund-raising. You may or may not be familiar with it, but it has come to our attention that fund-raising activities on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party are being, I gather, run out of your office. Faxes are being sent out of your office for fund-raising activities. There is an event on tonight involving a $200-per-person fee to go to the event and the response number is the minister's office.

I wonder if you've had an opportunity to review that and if you are now prepared to stand to acknowledge that this was inappropriate and to take the appropriate steps.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt for his question. I was made aware of that this morning. It was a situation that certainly was not tolerable. The young man has admitted that he made a mistake. He has tendered his resignation and I have accepted it. I have instructed my staff to review any costs that may be involved in phoning or faxing and those will be reimbursed. The young man did make a mistake, and I apologize for that. He has apologized, but he has also tendered his resignation and it has been accepted.

Mr Phillips: It raises the issue of the standards the Premier sets for the cabinet, the instructions that you've been given by the Premier on what things are and are not appropriate in the minister's office, and what steps are taken as new staff people are brought on to your staff.

My question is this: Are you prepared to release publicly the instructions that the Premier gave you and the other ministers on such activities and to indicate to us, as staff come on to ministers' staff, are they briefed on these procedures? And are you prepared to tell the House how in the world it could be that well over two years into Mike Harris's regime things like this are still occurring in ministers' offices?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: This young man came as a summer student. He's a university student. He worked in our office for two months and he worked on right-to-farm legislation and a number of other things. I have reiterated the rules, the dos and don'ts of the minister's office.

You know, the Liberals are not completely clean on this, because fraudulent faxes were sent from Liberal headquarters here at Queen's Park in June 1994. By using the Bell Canada call trace service it was found that the fax originated from the Liberal caucus community outreach at Queen's Park. The Liberals apologized. It was their fax machine, it was their student and they said their student was reprimanded. So we're not all aboveboard on this. It's a situation where we asked the young man to tender his resignation, and he has.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's a novel defence, that we're all guilty.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algom