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

October 15, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L108 - Tue 15 Oct 1996 / Mar 15 Oct 1996

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

HOME CARE

OBSTETRICAL CARE

NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION AWARDS

COMMENTS OF THE PREMIER

PATRICK W. OLIVE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TENDERING PROCESS

AIR QUALITY

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

JOB CREATION

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

CHILD CARE

BUILDING CODE

HOSPITAL FINANCING

VISITOR

ONTARIO HYDRO

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

ONTARIO-QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

STUDENT SAFETY

PROVINCIAL PARKS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

SKILLS TRAINING

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SMOKING AREA

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SALE OF AMMUNITION

COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

DRINKING AND DRIVING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

RENT REGULATION

BEAR HUNTING

RENT REGULATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

The House met at 1335.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the 1996 Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Today once again I rise to address the great hardship brought about by the government's broken promises to help people with disabilities, the sick, the frail and seniors in the Metro area.

These are the true victims of the Harris cuts: individuals who in most cases already face overwhelming hardships and need the services of GO Transit to get to their doctors or to hospital for life-saving treatment. An estimated 10,000 people will be deemed ineligible for Wheel-Trans, many of whom have hidden disabilities. Being denied Wheel-Trans will mean that they will not be able to do things like get to medical appointments, attend schools or work programs or even just get out into the community. Thanks to the Harris government's $8.7-million cuts to transportation, these people are now prisoners in their own homes.

Today, a total of 11 organizations are meeting with the Toronto Transit Commission to request that their constituents' right to transportation be protected and that thousands of GO Transit users not be cut off the service. These groups include the Coalition of Ambulatory Disabled Persons at Risk, the Aphasia Centre of North York, Bloorview MacMillan Centre, the Canadian Council of the Blind, the Epilepsy Association of Ontario, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Metro Stroke Leadership Coalition, the Ontario March of Dimes --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Time. The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

METRO DAYS OF ACTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): It's one week and counting to October 22, which is the beginning of the Metro Days of Action. Community organizations and coalitions are being brought together right across this region of Metro in their joint effort and joint commitment to fight back against the Harris government victimization of so many in our province.

The Metro Days of Action are bringing people together who have never worked together before. They're being united around a goal and a vision of having a different kind of province from what we see today and what the Harris government is leaving.

As I look at the leaflet from the Metro Days of Action, I can see the reasons set out there, what they're trying to educate people about in terms of this government's action: Hospitals are being closed; health care waiting lists grow; loss of control of the school system; local control is threatened; affordable public housing and rent control are abandoned; the most vulnerable people -- the poor, the disadvantaged, first nations -- are scapegoated; seniors must pay user fees for drugs. It goes on and on.

They make a really important point at the end of their leaflet. They say to people: "After reading this, if you still think that you personally have little to lose, then please think about the kids. You can't blame an innocent child for not understanding what is happening in this province. There's no excuse for us."

I agree with that sentiment. I agree with the Days of Action. I support their protest. I'll be out there at community organizations, helping them protest against the Harris government. The movement is growing.

HOME CARE

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): The Canadian Red Cross has joined with home support agencies throughout Ontario and across Canada to celebrate National Homemaker/Home Support Worker Week 1996 from October 13 to 19.

Care in the home is the way of the future, not only because it helps people maintain independence in their time of need, but on a larger scale because reform of Ontario's health system means a growing shift towards community-based services. That shift includes the $170-million long-term-care facility funding program to give more people of all ages higher levels of care and support in their own homes and long-term-care facilities with cost-effective community services. It also includes the establishment of 43 community care access centres across Ontario to provide simplified access to a range of long-term-care services, including nursing, therapy, homemaking and long-term-care facilities.

The Red Cross offers a variety of programs and services that help people maintain a life in their own home. Without these services, many people would find themselves without any alternative but to leave their homes and live in an institution. I congratulate the Canadian Red Cross homemakers and home support workers for bringing a human touch to the lives of so many people. In doing so they also give independence, pride and dignity.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My statement today is in the form of a question. I'd like to know how serious the Minister of Health is in determining real care for pregnant women in my community. I'd like to tell all members of the House that my community is but the first. Many other communities which do not happen to be around teaching centres will be facing what my community is currently facing, and that is lack of care for women who are critically in need of it because they are pregnant women and in many instances are pregnant women at risk.

As of today OHIP is currently negotiating with American hospitals to determine the level of fees. As it was put to the American hospitals, they are trying to negotiate a discount based on volume. I have to ask the members opposite, how serious can our minister be in trying to negotiate in good faith with all of the physicians in Ontario while the other arm of the minister is busy negotiating with the American hospitals to determine fees at a discount because of volume?

I find this just an affront -- an affront to the physicians all across Ontario, but more important, to the women in my community who are still looking for care. We currently have women who have had appointments with American doctors. They've been put off because the pre-approval simply did not come through on time. The Minister of Health has a responsibility to help all patients in Ontario, including pregnant women in my community.

NATIONAL CO-OP WEEK

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would like to take this opportunity to recognize National Co-op Week and congratulate Ontario's co-ops for the contribution they make to Ontario's communities and economy. Co-operatives have played a significant role in providing important goods and services in the agricultural sector, the child care sector, the insurance and financial service sectors, and increasingly in the provision of public services.

Co-ops continue to show how much people can achieve when they work together, pool resources and share skills for the benefit of their members and their communities. Because co-ops are locally based and member-owned, the benefits are invested back in Ontario communities and are an important catalyst for job creation and economic growth. Over 1,400 co-ops and 500 credit unions and caisses populaires now have over two million members in Ontario. Their combined assets of over $15 billion are a significant factor in Ontario's economy.

This year, as in previous years, the Canadian Co-operative Association is hosting its annual MPP reception. I encourage my colleagues to attend tomorrow's reception to learn about the achievements of Ontario co-operatives. Co-ops are an important resource for ensuring that in this time of cost restraints and restructuring public services remain affordable, accessible and accountable.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I'm pleased today to bring to the honourable members' attention that we are celebrating the fourth annual Good Neighbours Week from October 14 through 20. Good Neighbours is a community-based public awareness program that helps make Ontario communities safer, friendlier and more responsive to people in need, especially those who are frail, vulnerable and isolated. The campaign is designated to encourage people to reach out and help others. For example, in my home community of Brampton, the Good Neighbours program comes under the umbrella of the Bramalea police advisory committee.

The program will be involved in the Safe City initiative, which is part of the Brampton crime prevention program.

We are working to make our community, already one of the safest, even better. More people will get to know about the Good Neighbours program since it will be part of the community operations located in our regional mall, the Bramalea City Centre. The aim is to help communities become healthier and safer by creating informal networks that complement professional services already in place and reinforce the values found in caring, friendly neighbours.

Good Neighbours is a three-way partnership involving the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, corporate sponsors and community volunteers. It is an excellent example of the success that can be achieved when the public and private sectors work together to support community needs.

Simply put, being a good neighbour is helping those who need help. During this week and throughout the year I encourage all members to do as the Good Neighbours slogan says, "Take time to reach out."

EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION AWARDS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to recognize two North York public schools that have received awards of excellence in education from the National Quality Institute. Humber Summit Middle School and Grenoble Public School received national awards for their continuous improvement in student achievement and their strong partnerships with parents in the community. Humber Summit Middle School and Grenoble Public School are considered special needs schools. Students at both schools are performing above the North York average in mathematics and above the national average in reading and writing.

I'm pleased to report to the Legislature that schools and service departments at the Board of Education for the City of North York have won four out of five National Quality Institute education awards over the last two years. Through their continued quality improvement and outstanding commitment to quality education, the North York Board of Education has proven once again that its approach to quality education is working.

As Veronica Lacey, the North York education director, said, "Once again the board's schools and service departments have stood the test of the National Quality Institute's tough quality criteria and we came out winners."

On behalf of the Ontario Liberal caucus, and in the place of the Minister of Education, who should be making these kinds of statements, I'd like to congratulate Humber Summit Middle School, Grenoble Public School and the North York Board of Education for the excellence and leadership they have shown in education in Ontario.

COMMENTS OF THE PREMIER

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to raise a very sensitive issue in regard to comments the Premier is quoted as making when he was in Sault Ste Marie last week.

Mr Harris, according to the Sault Star, said that despite conflicting legal advice on the issue, the government may call an inquiry into the handling of sex abuse complaints by the Sault Ste Marie District Roman Catholic Separate School Board even though lawsuits against current and former board members are still before the court.

Mr Harris is quoted as saying, "I want to tell you we are very receptive and understanding and sympathetic to the desires of the community, and my sense is of the school board itself, to understand what happened, and we're concerned as a province for procedures that ought to be in place for school boards in the future."

The Premier, if he is stating government policy, is responding to a very serious and deep desire of the people of Sault Ste Marie and area that this matter should be inquired into. He is not agreeing with his colleague the Minister of Education and Training, who up to now has said that he would not call an inquiry.

I urge the Premier to exercise his role as the head of the government and direct that an inquiry be held as soon as possible into this very serious matter.

PATRICK W. OLIVE

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I'd like to inform my honourable colleagues in this chamber today about the fine work being done by Mr Patrick W. Olive, commissioner of economic development for Durham region.

At the annual meeting of the Economic Developers Association of Canada held September 21 to 24 in Sherbrooke, Quebec, Mr Olive was proclaimed Canada's economic developer of the year. This singular honour is a credit not only to Mr Olive's involvement within Durham region but also to his contribution to the economic development profession in Ontario, Canada and around the world.

The criteria for this award are, firstly, substantial and recognized contributions to professional development and the educational requirements of the profession; secondly, public education on the role of economic development; thirdly, development of new strategies spearheading major developments; and finally, media promotion of economic development.

The program, sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada, hopes to foster a sincere effort to improve and develop professional conduct for Canadian economic development professionals that will lead to job and wealth creation for Canadians.

Mr Olive's efforts represent a benchmark for others to emulate. Let all of us as legislators congratulate Mr Olive on a job well done. It is through the efforts of individuals such as Mr Olive that the world will know that Ontario truly is open for business.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question today is for the Premier, but I see he's not in the House yet. The opposition was told he would be here.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can stand down your question until the Premier comes or put it to someone else.

Mr Duncan: I'll stand down the first question.

The Speaker: The second question, opposition.

Mr Duncan: The second question is also to the Premier, who is not in the House.

Interjections.

Mr Duncan: Here he is.

The Speaker: Reset the clock. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr Duncan: My question is for the Premier. Today the auditor's report condemned your decision to let the Highway 407 management and maintenance contract go without tender. It's not just any contract. We estimate its value could be in excess of half a billion dollars. Can you tell me why this contract would be let without the benefit of a public tender and how you can ensure the public will enjoy the benefits normally associated with tendering, that is, proper public accountability?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister can explain that.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): Certainly, as required by our collective agreement with OPSEU, the Ministry of Transportation made reasonable efforts to have the contractor make offers of employment to our workers as well. But the question the honourable member asked was: Why is this government taking this approach? This government is taking this approach to deliver the best possible service to the people of Ontario in the most cost-effective way. As far as the tendering process we have in place is concerned, certainly we have taken every precaution to make sure there was a fair process, and we've done that.

Mr Duncan: The minister obviously didn't get the question. We knew that the 407 was built as a bypass; we didn't know the government intended to use it as a bypass around the tendering process.

The auditor says quite clearly that taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1 billion. That's the fault of the New Democrats. Where you're negligent is that you took a sweetheart deal and added more sugar. By allowing the contract, a contract which could be worth half a billion dollars, you will know, as the auditor says, that you haven't gone through a proper process.

We're also interested to know that a member of the Premier's staff was going to work for the company that got the contracts involved, one Mitch Patten, the Premier's deputy principal secretary. He has announced that he's leaving the Premier's office and will be joining the very firm that was awarded the sweetheart deal. Can you tell me what role Mr Patten played in deciding to forgo the tendering process and in the whole sweetheart contract? Perhaps you'd like to throw it back to the Premier if you could.

Hon Mr Palladini: This is something the previous government initiated and agreed to do. All we've done, basically, is inherit what the previous government had negotiated. We have a contract that we must abide by. We've done just that. We've abided by the contracts that were in place in order to deliver the 407, and that's what we're doing.

Mr Duncan: The minister is clearly not in charge of his own brief. In fact we checked and it was your government that negotiated this deal, not the previous government. How could your government have allowed it to go on?

We've also heard that one Peter Clute is heading to the privatization scheme to head that up, I believe the chief of staff to the finance minister. This just confirms our worst fears about the entire privatization and is demonstrated by your own lack of knowledge and understanding on this very significant contract.

What are you doing around privatization and how are you going to ensure that the public benefits from privatization, that it's not just an effort to reward old Tory hacks, and make sure that honest companies doing business in this province can get access to government work?

Hon Mr Palladini: I can assure the honourable members that before anything does get privatized, everything will be done according to the proper processes in order to get to the delivery price.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is again to the Premier. This time it has to do with recommendations from the Auditor General with respect to the Ministry of Environment and Energy. I'd like to quote to the Premier from the auditor.

"In order to properly safeguard the ecosystem and human health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy should update its standards for air pollutants. About 80% of all potentially harmful chemicals released in Ontario are released in the air. In 1992, the minister reviewed the standards for about 300 of these pollutants and determined that they had to be updated. Almost four years later, none of these 226 standards have been updated."

How does the Premier respond to this very serious concern that's been raised by the auditor on the issue of our healthy and clean environment?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I respond by referring it to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I agree with the auditor.

Mr Duncan: Well, it's good, Minister, because your government has cut funding for the ministry by close to $88 million, one third of your entire staff. If you agree with the auditor, why did your government undertake these initiatives and what are you going to do to respond to ensure that our air and water continue to be safe and that your ministry fulfils its obligations?

Hon Mr Sterling: For the past 20 years, previous governments have ignored air quality standards and bringing them up to date. On Thursday I answered a question, and it's true, as outlined by the auditor and as outlined by the previous minister of the environment's report, in the 1992 report cited by the auditor, that these air quality standards must be updated. That's why my ministry has put forward a plan to deal with the most critical and most often used emissions in the province of Ontario. We plan to attack this problem frontally and we plan to attack it with seriousness, more seriousness than any of the previous governments have thought to do.

Mr Duncan: Your plan of attack is to attack the very people who enforce our environmental laws. Your plan of attack has nothing to do with improving the air and water quality in this province and has everything to do with gutting the very existence of government in this province and the very existence of the Ministry of Environment. That answer is absolutely shameful.

I'd like to read a little bit more from the auditor's report in case the minister hasn't had a chance to read it. It says: "Drinking water surveillance program, established in 1986: As of December 31, 1993, the program covered 120 of 490 water treatment plants serving about seven million or 70% of Ontario's population. The ministry had planned to extend the program to about 15 new plants every year. However, citing resource constraints, the ministry has added only 13 plants."

How do you jibe your answer with what the auditor's telling you? The auditor's telling you that air quality is suffering, that water quality is suffering, and that your government is not only not responding, but you're undermining our very ability to ensure that Ontarians have safe and healthy drinking water and a safe and healthy air supply. How do you respond to that and how will you ensure that these standards are enforced across this entire province?

Hon Mr Sterling: The water quality program the member refers to is an overlay of another monitoring program which is undertaken by all of the municipalities across the province of Ontario. Each municipality has the obligation to take samples of water on a routine basis, and if there is a discovery that there is a lack of quality in that water, then that is reported to the Ministry of Environment and Energy. It is at that stage that we implement the second stage of a monitoring program. Therefore, all water under municipal plants is monitored in this province, I am assured by my officials.

Quite frankly, the auditor says that we are dealing with water quality standards and soil quality standards in a satisfactory manner. If you read his report in full, you will find that. I am satisfied that we're dealing with the situation, we are dealing with the most pressing problems, and we feel we can do it with the resources we have at this time.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last week the Solicitor General informed us that your office was provided with a copy of a briefing note, which would have come to you on March 18, entitled Illegal Gambling, Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario Report. Did you read this briefing note or were you briefed on the contents of this briefing note by staff?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I've never read the briefing note, but I do recall being briefed on the contents, because I believe there was an

article back last March or April in the Windsor paper. There was a briefing note on it and I think you may have a copy of the briefing note now. I think that was made available. There you go.

Mr Hampton: The briefing note wasn't made available; some people had to pry very hard to get it. The government doesn't want anybody to even see the report.

There's something passing strange here. Last week you were asked in a press scrum if you had heard about this report and you said you hadn't read the report and you didn't know if you should be concerned about it or not. What's unusual about that is that the issues raised in this briefing note are very clear. It says, "The purpose of this report is to identify the areas within the gaming industry that are susceptible to abuse by organized crime." Then it lists, very prominently, video gambling machines.

How could you have read the press report and had someone on your staff advise you of the briefing note, how could that happen without it raising some level of concern with you about legalized gambling and organized crime and its involvement in video lottery machines?

Hon Mr Harris: It did raise a concern with me. What I was asked was, I believe, ought I to be concerned that I hadn't read the report? I said no, I don't know that, I haven't read it. Am I concerned about the issue? Of course. Is the minister? Of course. Which is why we've responded with Bill 75. Which is why we've responded to try to get at the number of illegal machines the report refers to. The briefing I received said there are X number of illegal VLT machines out there. The report, as I recollect, says there are more illegal ones than we plan to make legal.

The report also says that we should be concerned about anti-gambling strategies, that we should make sure that the resources are there for the police. In the absence of any action -- you left such a mess, you refused to respond to any of that -- that's why, of course, we've been responding. We've received nothing but congratulations from the police and those involved for the way we've responded.

Mr Hampton: Let's see if we can cut through here. Let's see if we can cut through. Premier, this would be the briefing note that was prepared for the Ministry of the Solicitor General. This cover on it means that it went to cabinet office and that people in your office would have known about it. This is what the report says. The briefing note clearly states that "legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling, which has increased with interest shown in video gambling machines."

Anybody who even glanced at this casually would immediately have had a red light go off, and the red light would have signalled that there's a problem here, that merely trying to legalize video slot machines is not going to take out organized crime; in fact legalizing video slot machines is going to be a more open invitation than ever to organized crime.

So, Premier, let me ask you, didn't any of this occur to you? Didn't it occur to you that by legalizing these slot machines you might be climbing into bed with organized crime? Didn't that thought pass before your mind?

Hon Mr Harris: No, that thought has never passed before my mind. By having legal authority and control and more resources, our intention was to avoid organized crime, to avoid any illegal activity with all these forms of gambling -- with break-open tickets that you left uncontrolled for so long; with bingos, where you were a disgrace in not responding to the illegal activity taking place.

For you to suggest that the report says -- and I've not read it; maybe you've read the report. I doubt it says that getting involved in legalized VLTs would in fact invite organized crime. What I understand the report said, and as it was explained to me, it said it doesn't, all on its own, eliminate organized crime. That is why we have a whole strategy. We've asked the Solicitor General and the Attorney General for far more resources to be put into the whole area of controlling not only organized crime but all crime dealing with gambling.

Mr Hampton: I advise the Premier to read the briefing note, because it tells him that his whole strategy on video slot machines is wrong and it is an even greater invitation to organized crime than it has had before. But I suspect that's okay, because what you really want is the money.

JOB CREATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My second question to the Premier is about the very bad announcement last week from Statistics Canada that 35,000 jobs were lost in Ontario in September. Of the job loss across Canada, three quarters of the jobs lost were in Ontario, and in fact, if you look at the notes, they acknowledge that there are 57,000 fewer jobs in Ontario today than there were a year ago at this time.

My question to the Premier is, what do you intend to do about the loss of 35,000 jobs in Ontario in the month of September?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): There was the report of the monthly statistics, which concerned us greatly, as it concerned the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister indicated he felt that the trends were positive, that this was a blip and that overall we should expect to see very positive gains. For you to stand up and say year over year -- when the same statistics say there are, I think, close to 100,000 net new jobs in the province of Ontario alone. Where you come up with your statistic of 57,000 I do not know, but Statistics Canada says all the trends are positive; Ontario is leading the way. Statistics Canada also says we're looking at 100,000 net new jobs in this province of Ontario.

Do the individual monthly statistics concern the federal government and our government? Of course they do. Any single person unemployed in this province concerns me, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure they have a job.

Mr Hampton: The reality is that we should enjoy job growth throughout the summer and we should enjoy job growth in September. The reality is that when the Americans have interest rates at an all-time low and they are pouring gasoline on their economy to create as many jobs as they can going into a US presidential election, Ontario should be creating literally tens of thousands of jobs each month.

My simple question to the Premier is this: Ontario lost 35,000 jobs in September. Three quarters of the total job loss in Canada was in Ontario. Premier, what are you going to do about the loss of 35,000 jobs in Ontario in a month when we should be creating jobs?

Hon Mr Harris: Since this is exactly the same question, the same answer applies, so if Hansard wants to repeat it to the supplementary, I'd be happy if they'd do that.

I find it passing strange that here's the leader of a party who, when he was campaigning for the leadership of the party, said: "Our first priority has to be to restore the labour relations agenda. The second priority is to get control over the economy. The third priority is to pass legislation which gives workers control over their pension funds. Finally, we need to restore the equity agenda." Nothing about jobs. You didn't seem to care about jobs, which is why we lost 10,000 jobs through your five-year mandate. Our whole agenda is to bring jobs and growth and prosperity back to Ontario, and we'll continue to work on that.

Mr Hampton: This may be news to the Premier, but having good labour relations in Ontario might mean that the auto industry would be working full-time. Having some control over our pension funds --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Obviously I hit a nerve with the Conservative caucus. They don't want good labour relations in the province. I fear I have offended a nerve here. The fact of the matter is, if we had good labour legislation in this province, we would have fewer strikes and lockouts, we'd have more people working. You might want to think about that. Furthermore, if we had some organized strategy for the investment of pension funds, we might be using pension funds to create jobs rather than to kill them, which seems to be happening under your government.

Premier, you still haven't given us an answer. Your phoney tax scheme isn't working. Your phoney tax scheme is giving tax breaks to the really well-off, but it's killed 35,000 jobs in the month of September: jobs in the small business sector, jobs in the service sector and jobs in the construction sector. I merely ask you, since your phoney tax scheme isn't working, what are you going to do to create jobs in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: For all the puffery of the policies of the NDP, let me just set the record straight on two of them. Number one, in 1995 in Ontario there were 110 strikes during the first eight months. During the first eight months of 1996, there were 79.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mike, unemployment is up again. Your policies are not working.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York, come to order.

Hon Mr Harris: There have been fewer strikes in the province of Ontario since our government took over and changed the disastrous labour legislation you brought in, so let's just set the record straight.

Let me also set the record straight on job creation. During the member's period, over five years we lost 10,000 jobs. To date, we have created close to 100,000 -- well on our way to the 725,000 target we set for our five years.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Premier. You just said that legalized gambling will not invite illegal gambling into the province. I attended all of the meetings of the justice committee on Bill 75, and that's contrary to what any expert said, which was that any increase in gambling will also invite illegal gambling to flourish in Ontario. If you're really concerned about the infiltration of the criminal element into both legal and illegal gambling in the province with 20,000 slot machines being put in, will you withdraw Bill 75, which enables slot machines to be put all across this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Crozier: Premier, I wouldn't have expected much more of an answer from you than that, because to pay for your tax cut, I think you have to have these video slot machines across this province.

For two weeks now, Bill 75 has been on the docket to be discussed and has been held back. I think that's prudent. I think a more prudent move, if you're really concerned about illegal gambling and what slot machines can do to the social fabric in this province, is that you would withdraw Bill 75. I give you one more opportunity to simply slough it off. Will you withdraw Bill 75?

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much for the second opportunity. The answer is still no.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I'd like to return to the issue of your report on child care reform and the proposals contained therein. As you know, one of the proposals is with respect to the elimination of much of the wage subsidy grant program that currently exists, and suggests that that money would be used to create 12,000 new subsidized spaces.

I'd like to understand how you arrive at that commitment, at that calculation, because as your government continues to cut transfer payments to municipalities, we in fact are losing spaces every day. I'd like to give you a couple of examples.

From the Woodstock Sentinel-Review last week, we see headlines: "Day Care Centres Closing: City Council Votes to Close Facilities in Woodstock and Ingersoll." Talking with officials there, the reason comes back to the cost pressures within the system and the absolute cut in transfers that they have experienced and their concerns with respect to that. They also have concerns about what might happen with your proposals.

That's similar to Metro Toronto, Minister, where they're looking at $11.3 million being taken out of their system, and they say your proposal would cost 10,000 subsidy child care spaces.

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

Ms Lankin: Minister, I would like you to explain to us, how exactly did you arrive at this calculation of 12,000 new subsidized spaces?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. The first thing I would like to point out about the report is that they are proposals, general directions, and that what we are now doing is getting input and consulting with those groups that are most involved in this before we make any final decisions. I think there are a number of questions and a lot of other detailed information that we would certainly need before we decide how we want to spend and finalize the proposals for the $600 million we have allocated for child care.

Ms Lankin: Minister, if you're consulting with people, you've got to give them information so they can respond to your proposals. Don't you get it? We don't understand how you can say that this proposal is going to create 12,000 new subsidized places in Ontario. Municipalities are cutting spaces every day as we speak because they no longer have the money to support their portion of the child care subsidies, their share. So if they can't take up new subsidies, if they don't have the money, we're not going to see 12,000 new spaces. In fact, we're going to see a continuation of a decrease in the number of spaces that are available to working families.

Minister, you've got a responsibility to provide some detail to people and to truly consult. We are still unable to get a list from your office of those groups that you're going to consult with. This is not a public consultation.

Tonight, Minister, I'm watching a series of hearings across this province. The first one's here in Toronto at Queen's Park at 6 o'clock. Why don't you come? I'm inviting you. Why don't you come? Why don't you listen to the presentations that are made? Why don't you talk with us in the child care community? We'd like to have you there. Minister, will you attend our hearings tonight?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I guess if the member wants to know the groups of individuals that I will be consulting, as I pointed out to her some days ago here in the House, I would urge her to look at the report, where I spent many, many months consulting with many, many groups, some of whom had never been let in the door under the previous administration. Those are the same groups that I'm going to be back consulting with.

I don't think there's any secret. I hadn't been aware that the member was bugging my office for a list that's already public, but if she'd like another copy of it, I'd be more than pleased to give it to her.

I remain committed to consulting on the child care report. I had thought that since the report came out late last summer it might not be a bad idea for the organizations to have some time to review it before I ask them for their comments. So we are now asking them for their comments and we will be listening to their input as we move through before we make final decisions on what is a very important issue.

BUILDING CODE

We've sent copies of our proposal to more than 1,500 stakeholders and we're looking forward to hearing from them. We ask for their comments by December 20.

Mr Wettlaufer: In my riding over the past couple of years I've been in apartment buildings and commercial buildings with inadequate access for the disabled. Yet I understand concerns have been raised that the government intends to reduce or eliminate sections of the Ontario building code that ensure access for the disabled. Would you please tell the House, Minister, whether the anticipated changes will reduce standards ensuring access?

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, as you are aware, the Hamilton Civic Hospitals and the Chedoke-McMaster merged into the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. This merger means that there are 8,000 employees now under the jurisdiction of this corporation.

It was reported last week that approximately 2,000, or 25%, of the total workforce in these hospitals, front-line health care workers, could be laid off as a result of your funding cuts. Can you explain to the House how you can justify the layoff of 2,000 front-line health care workers and believe that keeps your commitment of no cuts to hospitals and how it does not jeopardize the health of citizens in my community?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): That comment was made by Mr Scott Rowand, who is the new CEO of the health services corporation. Mr Rowand was former CEO of Wellesley Hospital, so I make no comment on his speculation. I don't know on what basis that comment was founded and I bet today he regrets making that comment.

Mr Agostino: I can maybe enlighten the minister on the basis that Mr Rowand made the comment. In yesterday's interview, he said the 25% loss in jobs matches the 18% cuts in provincial funding announced by the government in its economic statement: "These are the funding directions we have to work with. This is the making of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp. It's provincial policy."

Minister, it is very clear that Mr Rowand made those comments on the basis of the funding cuts which your government has announced and his assessment of the situation where he believes that, as a result of the 18% cut that you have given to those hospitals in Hamilton, 2,000 employees, front-line workers, nurses, nurses' aides, people who work directly in the hospital will have to be laid off. It's very clear why Mr Rowand made those comments. He made those comments because of what you have told the hospital to do.

Minister, again, how can you sit there and justify these cuts and can you again explain how you believe that the loss of 2,000 jobs in the health care sector in Hamilton-Wentworth is not going to jeopardize the health care of citizens in my community?

Hon Mr Wilson: I don't know on what basis Mr Rowand justifies those comments. It's certainly not been the case to that extent in terms of displaced workers throughout the province.

We also remind members that the first major investment by this government -- in fact the largest investment in the history of modern-day health care in Ontario -- was $170 million that we made this year into community-based services to create 4,400 jobs for nurses, homemakers and other people in community-based services.

Health care is a growing field in this province as the population gets older and grows, and there will be additional jobs in community-based services. Some 3,000 nurses have already gone through or are in training through the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel. They're preparing for those new jobs in community-based services.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to introduce a former member for Hamilton West in the members' gallery, Mr Richard Allen. Welcome.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): My question is to the minister responsible for privatization. Of course, I would wish to add my congratulations to the many he has received and is still receiving on his important appointment.

We hear rumours and comments from people in the executive council in the government vis-à-vis the prospects at Ontario Hydro. I read in not one, nor two, but three papers this morning that Ontario Hydro's privatization has been put on the back burner for as long as two or three years. What Ontarians need to know, and need to know now, is, will you privatize all or some of the $42 billion in assets of Ontario Hydro? What is your timetable? When will you do it? How will you do it? Tell me.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I want to thank the honourable member very much for the kind words. I suspect that might be the last time I hear kind words from him in the House.

The important issue to deal with here is that before we proceed with any particular privatization candidate we need to clearly understand what the process is we're going to go through. It's important, from what we've been able to determine, that the process should be as open, honest and clear as possible so that Ontarians can understand completely how we come to our decision as it relates to any privatization candidate. Clearly we're not going to move ahead on any privatization option until we have that process set.

Mr Pouliot: It's obvious that the minister has as much difficulty giving us a straight answer as he has receiving a compliment. Farmers, small business people, people who pay for the juice, all they wish to know is, will you or will you not privatize Ontario Hydro? Stop dancing; it does not become you. Tell us the straight answer. Tell us the truth. If you don't have any plans, we will understand. If you have some plans, we want to know. Will you, yes or no, privatize Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Sampson: I thank the honourable member. From reading Hansard in the past, I won't take dancing lessons from him, that's for sure.

Clearly, as I said earlier, what we want to do is make sure we have a process that's fair and open. The member wants us to address candidates well in advance of the potential process being established. That's putting the cart before the horse. We will be prepared to deal with candidates once we have a process established that Ontarians can understand and that is open and fair and deals with the opportunities available to us in privatization as clearly as possible.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. You are aware of how important the grape and wine industry is to the province of Ontario. You also know how important the industry is to the Niagara region and to my riding in particular.

The Ontario grape growers and grape and wine industry have always brought their concerns forward in a positive and constructive manner, something I'm sure the opposition could learn from. I have a document here which the Ontario grape growers presented to the Niagara Conservative caucus with very grave concern. I might add that the member for St Catharines was in attendance at the Niagara Conservative caucus, and as a result of that meeting I know he's going to cross the floor at any time because he really believes in what our government is doing.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Put the question, please.

Mr Froese: That document states that the federal Liberal government is changing its pest management regulatory agency's approach to doing business. After reducing the agency's budget by over $14 million --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been put.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I got from that question that the honourable member for St Catharines is considering crossing the floor; I'm not sure whether that was part of the question. I believe it has to do with the harmonization of pesticides and herbicides that are of important --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Harmonization of the pesticide industry at the federal and provincial level is being worked on as we speak. It's very important because the federal government has brought in legislation that will charge the farmers some $10 million to further analyse the residues and what have you. We believe that to treat farmers well we must harmonize, and whenever we approve at the federal level, it should be very well approved here in Ontario.

Mr Froese: I wonder if the minister could tell me and the House if he believes that there's a better way of remaining competitive while at the same time reducing costs -- doing better for less.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Of course, we all have to do better for less. The private sector has done that for a long time; governments are now starting to do it. It's important that this House recognize that indeed the federal government must recognize the research and development done in other jurisdictions such as the United States and Europe. Once they recognize that, there would be a lot less duplication and the costs to the farmer would be considerably reduced. We are supportive of this. I certainly hope that the federal government is listening and is indeed supportive of that type of action as well.

ONTARIO-QUEBEC CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AGREEMENT

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning this government's latest agreement in principle with the Quebec government on construction mobility between the two provinces. You deserve congratulations for the effort you have put into this. But the grade is not as high for the final result. Late Thursday in Ottawa, during your speech at the Ottawa Construction Association, you said that Ontario's goal through these long and difficult negotiations was to achieve a more level playing field for Ontario contractors and workers.

I must say that a level playing field has not been reached. Even though Quebec says it will recognize the Ontario construction workers' certification, only 10% of the Ontario workers in the residential area are unionized.

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

Mr Lalonde: Very few Ontarians have an Ontario competency card. According to this agreement in principle, to work in Quebec Ontarians will still have to join a union in Quebec. Will Quebec construction workers working in Ontario have to obtain their Ontario card to work in Ontario?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the member for Prescott-Russell: As I indicated in my comments at the lunch in Ottawa on Thursday, I appreciated very much the efforts of all members of the eastern Ontario caucus. I think the fact that we were able to obtain a much more level playing field really was the result of many people working together.

I would indicate to you that we realize there is more that needs to be done. That's why, as soon as we had agreed in principle to the agreement -- our officials, I can assure you, are continuing to work by phone and they will be meeting to make sure that the deal is implemented. Also, we have been given assurance by the Quebec Minister of Labour that this will go through the Legislature of Quebec this fall. We are confident that there will be more equal access and that our people will be able to get jobs in Quebec.

Mr Lalonde: Minister, last Friday, the day after your speech, some contractors were furious about this agreement. They contacted the Quebec union office and were told that they still have to meet two conditions and some requirements. This was said on TV Thursday night. Minister, can you tell this House what the two conditions and the Commission de la construction du Québec requirements are that Ontario contractors have to meet?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As you well know, there was a reduction as far as the elimination of the competency exam. Our contractors no longer have to write the competency exam, and that was quite an insult to our very well qualified contractors. However, they will continue to need to demonstrate that they are indeed qualified construction contractors, so that information will need to be provided to the CCQ.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training following from comments made by his leader, the Premier, in Sault Ste Marie last week.

The Premier is quoted as saying that he was sympathetic to the holding of an inquiry into the Deluca scandal. He said, "We'd like to see if we can't get at it faster than what some are telling us is possible." What does "faster" mean? Is the ministry prepared to move forward with an inquiry into the Deluca affair immediately, or what is the time frame?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for the question. I think all those who are familiar with the Deluca affair are saddened by it. I know that all my colleagues are and I'm sure the member opposite is as well.

I believe, as do my colleagues, that it's important that children in this province are safe in their schools. Obviously we as a government, and I'm sure every person in this chamber, would like to do anything we can to ensure that safety can be done. As the member alluded to, there is conflicting legal advice on this file.

There is currently a civil case going on. We're monitoring that civil case, and I can assure the member opposite that as soon as it is practical, we will make a decision and an announcement on a possible inquiry.

Mr Wildman: I'm afraid the minister has not answered the question. This is a very serious matter, as the minister knows. All of us are concerned about the safety of our children, both in school and outside of school. All of us recognize that an inquiry might shed light on how it was possible that a teacher could remain teaching in a system for 20 years, and subsequently we find that teacher pleading guilty to 14 counts of sexual assault. We need to know how this happened so we can ensure it does not ever happen again in any board, public or separate, across this province. What does the minister mean? When is "as soon as practicable"?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think the member opposite has put the question well. This surely is a circumstance that's repugnant to us all. We too wonder how this could have happened. However, I'm sure that the member opposite will know from his time in government that when a matter is before the courts, ministers are limited in what can be said.

We are monitoring the situation now. We are inquiring into what time frame the civil action might take and what the appropriate actions of this government should be. I can assure the member opposite that this has my attention, certainly my concern and my deep empathy.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines. Minister, as you're well aware, the tourism industry in Ontario is very dependent upon the continued health of the provincial parks system. I understand that you have a new management model for the provincial parks system. Could you let us know how that model is coming along?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for that question. As he and the members of the Legislature know, we have over 265 parks in Ontario, some of the finest parks throughout the whole world, and we operate over 100 of those parks.

Earlier this year, on May 1, we announced Ontario Parks. It's a new way to fund our parks. What it essentially entails is that when you pay money to go in to see one of our parks, that money stays within a special account and goes towards all of Ontario's parks. The incentive now is to attract more people to use our parks, and I would encourage members of this Legislature and also the public watching to take advantage of Ontario's parks. They're the best in the world, and we want to make them better for today and for future generations.

Mr Grimmett: The supplementary question has to do with the methods of marketing that the province is now using for its provincial parks. Has the ministry considered taking out a Web site for the provincial parks marketing plan?

Hon Mr Hodgson: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay will be pleased to know that the answer is yes. Back in July, MNR, in our parks division, took advantage of the latest technology to promote our parks system, which we're very proud of and all the people of Ontario should be proud of. The Internet site is www.mnr.gov.on.ca. Since it was announced in July and put on the Net, 13,858 people have visited the site. This is just the tip of the iceberg of ways that we're trying to improve Ontario's parks system.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My question today is for the Premier. Any day now you are going to be asking us in this House to approve the introduction of 20,000 video slot machines into every bar and restaurant across this province. For the last two weeks, we have been asking your government for the contents of the criminal intelligence report that warns the people of Ontario of the dangers of this introduction of video slot machines across this province. The report says that "legalized gambling has never replaced illegal gambling in this province."

Premier, when the police are giving us such a warning, don't you think the people of Ontario and their representatives, we in this House, should have that information before we give that approval?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll refer that to the Solicitor General.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I indicated in the House last week and when this issue was raised originally that this is a report by an arm's-length, self-regulating body, the Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario. I suggest respectfully that the member opposite consider directing a question to that organization. This is not a government report, we have no responsibility for this report, and we do not have the ability to release it.

Mr Ramsay: The minister now is hanging his hat on this report, but he has seen -- as he only now admits, 30 minutes after the last question period here, finally -- a sanitized version in this briefing note of this report, and yet this minister is denying the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature access to this information so that we can make the proper decisions and recommendations for the people of Ontario.

Minister, you should at least be able to allow us in the justice committee, in an in camera session, to have the appropriate officials come forward and bring these concerns, or else I think it would be clear that you are suppressing this information because you have a greedy government here and you're looking for dollars to pay for your tax cut. Now give us that opportunity and let us look at that in the justice committee.

Hon Mr Runciman: We have had numerous incidents through the past history of governments of various political stripes with respect to solicitors general or ministers of the crown approaching the police or officials within the justice system and ultimately resigning because of those approaches, and governments of all political stripes have supported that there should continue to be that sort of separation between the political arm and the justice system itself.

The press comments with respect to the Criminal Intelligence Service report, as the Premier indicated earlier, were out in the media in March of this year. The committee met and, to my knowledge, did not call on Chief Fantino or any representative of CISO to make an appearance, or any member of the policing community, as I understand it. So the opportunity was there, if indeed they had this interest. I think they're looking for some political gain by raising this issue today. This is not a government report. We have no authority to release a non-government report.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week your ministry held meetings with people from the disabled community to discuss the income support reform project, and in particular to discuss the guaranteed support plan for people with disabilities. We've been talking to people who were at that meeting. To say they are upset is an understatement. They feel betrayed. In the proposals you put forward there is a proposal for a new definition of "disability," much stricter, much tougher.

What it means is that if you proceed with this, you'll be throwing tens of thousands of people off the rolls of disability support, even under your new program, and leaving them uncovered under the system.

People raised this concern with your ministry bureaucrats who were there. They were told that the definition is being drafted in a climate of fiscal restraint --

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

Ms Lankin: -- and that there are political realities to consider. Well, there are people realities to consider, those disabled people who will be cut off support.

Why don't you just be very honest with us? What is your proposal about? Is it not about finding a way to pay for the tax cut your government is giving to the wealthy, and in fact is punishing those people who are disabled in order to accomplish that goal?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The definition of "disabled" under the proposals we have -- there is no final definition. That's why we are consulting to get the input that I think is very important before we make any decisions. The other point I'd like to make is that the definition is being looked at to be redefined in the interests of finding a definition that works better for the disabled, not in the interests of saving money.

Ms Lankin: Those people from the disabled community who were at that meeting made it very clear to your ministry that the proposal doesn't work in the interest of persons with disabilities. In fact there are many people who are currently under the category of permanently unemployable who would be thrown off the rolls of support, who would no longer have access to government support even though they couldn't go out and work, even though they couldn't qualify under other programs of the government. You're not making things better; you're just casting people off to the side. Again, it comes back to dollars and cents.

When they asked the ministry why you would be moving down this road with restrictive words like "severely" and others where you know that people will be disqualified as a result, they were told that the bottom line was a fiscal imperative and a political reality. What about the reality of those people's lives? Minister, on everything I ask you about in this House, your answer is, "It's a proposal, it's a proposal."

The Speaker: Question, please.

Ms Lankin: The people in the bureaucracy say this proposal's coming down the track like a train. It's got to be stopped. Will you commit today that you will not change the definition of "disability" in a way that will disqualify people who are currently in receipt of those supports, who need those supports, who need your government to care about them?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the officials who may or may not have said what the member says they are supposed to have said, they're not the ones who are making the decision on this. It's the minister, it's cabinet, it's caucus who make the decision on any changes that may or may not occur with services for the disabled. We made a commitment to the disabled that we would be designing a new income-support program to better meet their needs and we stand by that commitment.

There has been concern expressed about the label "permanently unemployable," because many members of the disabled community objected to that. They felt they were able to contribute and did not want to be labelled permanently unemployable. That also means there are some in the system who cannot be employed and have disabilities that mean they need support, and this government is committed to supporting them. We are not going to be throwing people off the system.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. The auditor released his report at 1:30 this afternoon and in it there are three recommendations that affect your ministry:

"Eliminate areas of...duplication of programs, services and administration between the province and the federal government; complete arrangements to ensure that timely, reliable labour market information is available and used to make effective program and resource allocation decisions; and revise funding arrangements with delivery agents to make use of more results-based approaches and to achieve savings of as much as $17 million annually."

I wonder if you could respond to these recommendations and comment on how they jibe with your current plans within your ministry.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Scarborough East for the question. We have taken note of the auditor's comments, particularly with regard to those things we have already done to improve the training system in Ontario.

We've eliminated the bloated governance structure which has paralysed training in Ontario over the last few years, we've eliminated the blatantly wasteful duplication in programs, we are spending $310 million on training in Ontario and we're working very hard with our federal counterparts to make sure the two systems of training mesh for the benefit of people who require entry into the workworld. I'm very proud of our record on training.

Mr Gilchrist: In light of the fact that this report has just come out, I wonder if you can give an indication to the House of the timing for any further moves you'll make to bring into play within your ministry as many of these recommendations as possible.

Hon Mr Snobelen: We have a lot of work to do to make the kind of improvements that are necessary in our post-secondary system and in our training system in Ontario. I'm proud of the steps we've taken already. As the member probably knows, we have a discussion paper out working on what public policy should be on the future of colleges and universities. That report will come in to us in mid-December; December 15 is the timing for that report. We look to make some further progressive steps post that report being filed.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you can help me with this; I don't know. The executive director of the Gaming Control Commission of Ontario, Duncan Brown, has been able to get a copy of the report to which we made reference in this House. We've asked the Premier about it, we've asked the Solicitor General, we've asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Could you explain to us how someone outside of this House --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a good question, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: It is a good question, but the fact of the matter is that it's not anywhere within my realm to try to get that information or explain to you how to go about getting it. Maybe in a previous life I could have helped you, but as of today I can't.

VISITORS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I am pleased to announce in the gallery a Leaside High School grade 10 history class, including my own daughter, Leslie Ann.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's way out of order too, but we welcome Leaside High School.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I move that the following substitution be made to the membership:

On the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mrs Ross be substituted for Mr Stockwell.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is the motion carried? Carried.

PETITIONS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Petitions. The member for Sudbury.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Thank you, Mr Speaker --

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I had kindly agreed to sit down, simply because you had made an error in judgement.

The Speaker: The member for Parkdale, go ahead. Petitions, the member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: I had said I was agreeable --

The Speaker: The member for Parkdale, go ahead with your petition.

Mr Ruprecht: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that new decision. I very much appreciate that.

The Speaker: Read your petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition that speaks to the erosion of child care services in Ontario. This petition is addressed to the assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector, which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas.

"We urge this government to make its budget reduction in areas where children and families will not once again be the target of cuts.

"Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care, which includes parents caring for their own children and the care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I continue to receive petitions from workers all across Ontario opposed to the Mike Harris government's continuing attack on workers and their rights in health and safety and workers' compensation. This petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of our caucus, I add my signature to theirs.

SMOKING AREA

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 465 students who are seriously concerned with the impact of the smoking ban, which has created numerous problems for adjacent property owners and the students themselves. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the students at the Arnprior District High School, request a designated smoking area on school property. We feel the present situation is intolerable and will eventually result in the serious injury or death of a student.

"We recognize that littering and loitering is unacceptable and would like something to be done, like having a designated spot on the school property."

I affix my signature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My office continues to be flooded with this petition, which is of significant importance to the people of northeastern Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two acute care hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession impacting on the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendation to close two acute care Sudbury hospitals."

I affix my signature to the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 2113, the Don Mills Lodge, District Lodge 78 and Airline Central Lodge 2323. The petition reads as follows:

"To Premier Harris:

"We, the undersigned, oppose any attempts to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

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

I add my signature in support of this petition.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I present a petition signed by people concerned about ammunition regulations.

"Whereas the NDP government under former Premier Bob Rae passed legislation, Bill 181, the ammunition control act, placing restrictions on the sale of ammunition in Ontario; and

"Whereas the provisions contained in Bill 181 are time-consuming, onerous and create unnecessary red tape; and

"Whereas the records produced as a result of the provisions of Bill 181 cannot be reasonably used to track criminals and are on many occasions across Ontario where such records are kept insecurely stored and thus available for criminal use as a shopping list of homes with firearms; and

"Whereas Bill 181 was passed without any discussion with law-abiding gun owners such as farmers, hunters, collectors and recreational shooters, those who are most affected by the legislation; and

"Whereas Bill 181 will do nothing to combat the illegal use of ammunition;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to repeal the ammunition control act, protect the rights of responsible firearms owners and work for tougher penalties against those who criminally misuse firearms and ammunition."

I support this petition and therefore affix my signature to it.

COMMERCE INTERPROVINCIAL

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que le taux de sans-emploi au sein de l'industrie de la construction est très élevé dans toute la vallée de l'Outaouais, notamment dans la région d'Ottawa-Carleton où, selon l'International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local union 586, 43 % des travailleurs syndiqués de différents métiers reliés à la construction sont au chômage ;

«Attendu que plusieurs emplois sur les chantiers de construction de l'Ontario sont comblés par des travailleurs du Québec ;

«Attendu que les travailleurs et les entrepreneurs en construction de l'Ontario font face à de nombreuses règles lorsqu'ils veulent travailler au Québec ou encore obtenir des contrats au Québec ;

«Attendu que les négociations entre l'Ontario et le Québec au cours des 20 dernières années afin d'abolir les barrières interprovinciales n'ont pas permis d'établir une parité au sein des deux provinces ;

«Nous, les soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Que le projet de loi privé, Loi de 1996 sur la main-d'oeuvre de la construction du Québec, déposé à l'Assemblée législative le 4 juin 1996 par le député de Prescott et Russell, Jean-Marc Lalonde, qui contribuera à créer de l'emploi et à protéger l'industrie de la construction en Ontario, soit adopté par l'Assemblée.»

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offenders;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I'm very happy to sign this petition.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has cut back spending on all social services such as education, health care, day care and other essential programs;

"Whereas the Ontario government has singled out the most vulnerable members of our society: the poor, unemployed, women, elderly, children, sick and disabled;

"Whereas these cutbacks also attack the very social fabric of Ontario;

"Whereas the Ontario government has violated the democratic process;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To demand an end to cutbacks to our social programs; to demand the Ontario Legislature invest in the future of Ontario by increasing investments to improve the wellbeing of Ontario now."

I affix my signature to that.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have further petitions from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system, including reducing benefits; excluding claims for repetitive stain injuries, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational disease; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; integrating sick benefits into WCB; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT, including eliminating worker representation on the board and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"We demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeals structure with worker representation; that the WCAT be left intact; and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

I add my name to theirs.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster evictions by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

I have signed the petition.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition regarding the spring bear hunt containing over 230 signatures. It is addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and reads:

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas over 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

I affix my signature to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition here that keeps coming in by the hundreds, a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants and allows for security and stability in their homes and communities; and

"Whereas lifting rent control in Ontario would leave tenants with uncontrollable rent increases and financial instability; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favouring easier and faster evictions by landlords;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to save rent control."

I affix my signature to this in agreement.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the St Catharines area that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario promised not to cut one penny from health care; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has proceeded to cut over $1 billion in much-needed dollars from community hospitals; and

"Whereas the people of St Catharines have come to rely upon the caring, professional service provided by health care givers at the General Hospital, the Shaver Hospital and the Hotel Dieu Hospital and who view this betrayal by the Mike Harris government as an attack on quality health care services in the Niagara region; and

"Whereas the residents of St Catharines do not accept the notion that any of its hospitals should be closed, because they are essential in order to maintain a caring and humane society;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government keep their election promise and restore health care spending to the level at which they promised during the last election campaign so that all three St Catharines hospitals are able to continue to provide their much-needed and valuable services."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 81,

An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à réduire le nombre des députés à l'Assemblée législative en rendant identiques le nombre et les limites des circonscriptions électorales provinciales et fédérales et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à des lois concernant la représentation électorale.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to be able to resume debate on this bill and finish the time that's left on the clock. Last Thursday, when we ended debate on this, I was talking about how to me this particular piece of legislation really addresses the wrong problem. I want to go back to some of the basic points that I think need to continue to be repeated as we look at what this bill does.

For the purposes of those who are following this discussion, this is the bill that in four and a half lines essentially changes the representation to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario by making not just the boundaries but the numbers and names of those boundaries identical to the federal, ie, moving from 130 seats to 103 seats.

I have to say, as I look at this bill and continue to think about what this will do, that I see this as a pretty straightforward attack on democracy in this province. I see this as a significant erosion of the level of democracy we have in this province which, in my view, as I mentioned last week and want to reiterate today, is already in pretty significant trouble.

I know that one of the reasons the Tory members are using in their defence of this legislation is that this is showing once again, as they put it, that they are keeping the promises they made in the Common Sense Revolution. I have to say, as I said the other day, that on this one they are doing, through this piece of legislation, what they said they would do.

The question can be asked, however, why this one particular promise is being kept while other much more significant promises they made are not being kept. Therefore, why is it so important that they maintain their word to the people of the province on this bill, which reduces not just the number of MPPs but which, as I want to continue arguing, reduces the influence and level of democracy in this province?

Why are they not keeping the promise they made to the people of the province around health care, that they would not touch funding for health care, when they are taking out, over the next couple of years, $1.3 billion of health care?

Why are they not keeping the promise they made to the people of the province on not reducing funding to classroom education, when we have seen the Minister of Education not once but on two significant occasions now break that promise, first in the cuts he's already put into the system of almost $1 billion, in just the elementary and secondary school panel, and then in his musings that another $600 million is going to come out of the system, and continuing to pretend that isn't hurting classroom education? Why are they not keeping their promise of maintaining funding for law and order in this province?

Those are to cite but three major areas where they went out of their way to say: "We are going to keep our promises. We are making these solemn promises." Yet they are breaking them.

On this one, they want to keep their promise. So it seems to me that this whole discussion, rather than being about whether or not they're keeping their promises, really ought to be about what does this bill do. And what this bill does and why in fact they're keeping their promise on this particular piece of legislation is because what this legislation does is it shifts power. It shifts power more and more into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

That of course is quite consistent with the overall direction of this government, which, despite the promises they made on health care, on classroom education and on law and order in this province, really has everything to do with shifting wealth and power from the many across this province into the hands of a few. That's what this government is all about and that's what this particular piece of legislation does in terms of the power. It shifts that power more and more into the hands of the Premier and into the hands of the few people around the Premier.

It will make, I have no doubt about it, this Parliament even more irrelevant than it is today, because at least today there is some ability for people from across this province -- from the north, from rural Ontario, from Metropolitan Toronto and the other urban centres of the province -- to send representatives who at least, if nothing else, have the ability now and then to stand up and speak for their constituents.

And I'm not talking just about the members in the opposition; I'm talking also about many of the members in the government caucus who are beginning to realize that the policies they are putting into place are not having the positive consequences they thought or were led to believe they would have. Yet we haven't seen things quite develop to the point where enough of them are prepared to speak their mind either in this assembly or outside of this assembly. They may be speaking their minds in the caucus meetings. Who knows? We certainly hear from time to time indications that this is happening.

But what this piece of legislation does is it reduces the ability of people to speak up for their constituents, and it does that not just because there are going to be fewer people from northern Ontario, fewer people from rural Ontario and, I might say, fewer people from Metropolitan Toronto; it will do that even more significantly because what this is is a clear sign that the number of people in this Legislature, people who are elected by the people of the province, don't matter, because all that matters is to make sure that you get the ear of the Premier and the two or three people around the Premier and that's how decisions are going to be made.

I want to say to the members opposite that in this I do not just leave my criticism at them. I criticize them severely for what they are doing in this bill because they are just playing into that notion of executive power. They are playing into that notion of saying, "The only person who matters in this assembly and across this province in the provincial scene is the Premier of the province and the few advisers he has around him and nobody else matters." In doing that, whether they realize it or not, they are destroying the last vestiges of power that those of us who are not the Premier have.

I speak to this as someone who has been around the area of power. I say this, therefore, as someone who has seen to some extent how it feels to be close to the centre of power and then to realize that you don't have quite as much power as you thought you did.

I have to say that I am coming more and more to the realization that if we do not do something significant to change the way in which we in this Legislature operate and we in this Legislature come to this place to begin with, what we are going to be seeing is simply another major step towards the significant erosion of the legislative process and the democratic process in this province. Because it doesn't matter at the end of the day, if the process continues as it does, whether you have 103 or whether you have 130, except, as I said, for the even reduced voice of the limited voice that we now have.

It doesn't matter because if the only one who matters is the Premier and the few people around the Premier, then people could argue: "Why bother having the 130 members? We could in fact just do away with most of them." That I think is what is significantly wrong about this piece of legislation. It picks up on that thread, it continues that line and it goes very dangerously close to enshrining even more strongly than exists today that power in the hands of a few.

I have been saying and will continue to say and will continue to speak out on this and urge people to think seriously about what this is doing, hoping that we'll have a chance in committee to deal with this in a significant manner. Not that, quite frankly, I have any great hopes that the people of the Conservative caucus are going to change their minds, but hoping that people out there across the province still care enough about the democratic process to realize what is going on here and to realize that the problems that we have aren't being fixed by Bill 81 and quite frankly wouldn't even have been fixed if we didn't have Bill 81 in front of us; it just wouldn't get any worse.

What we need in this province is a real debate, a real, serious discussion about how we elect people to this Legislative Assembly in a way that that process of election reflects the wishes of the people. I have talked before about my great interest in proportional representation as providing some of the answers. I don't see it as the only solution. I think that we also need to look at ensuring that there are in fact greater abilities for members of this assembly, whether they're on the opposition benches or indeed on the government side, to be able to speak their minds more freely without running into the danger of being punished for that.

I think there are significant reforms that could be made, that would bring more democracy to this place and that would ensure that cynicism which this bill purports to deal with, that cynicism that's out there, which comes I believe much more as a result of people feeling more and more helpless, more and more unable to continue to have any influence over what their politicians do, than it does around the number of politicians we have in this place.

I think that cynicism could only begin to be dealt with, we can only begin to provide some answers, if we ever have the courage to look at the whole process of electoral reform in this province. Until and unless we do that, we're just at best tinkering and at worst, as I continue to emphasize with this bill, making things even worse.

It's interesting that at the same time as we are having this discussion, we've been having another discussion in the Legislative Assembly committee around the question of referenda, where again the government of the day purports to be giving people more rights, to be giving people greater say on how to influence decision-making. I say to them, if they're really serious about that, maybe one of the first things that they want to put out for referendum is the notion of changing the electoral system. Other jurisdictions, like New Zealand, have done it.

They've gone to a proportional representation system, one that ensures that the people who come to this place come here reflecting proportionately the wishes of the people other there. When people say, "That just means more and more minority governments," I say, "Show me how that isn't in the best interests of the people of this province." I am interested in pursuing this discussion, but on the broader issue of electoral reform.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): In response to my colleague from Dovercourt, I listened with great interest to his speech both today and on Thursday, in addition to my colleague from Renfrew North. I appreciate there are disagreements on this bill, but I think it's important to put the motive very much on the table. I think it's very important to lead by example, that when we ask school boards to reduce their expenditures by 1.8%, that when we ask hospitals to do more with less, that we look internally at the operations of government at ministry after ministry, to say: "Listen, we need you to do more with less. We need you to make priorities." It's important that we lead by example.

What does that mean? That means that when you're looking at expenditure reductions, you as a decision-maker, as a member of the Ontario Legislature, must be part of the solution.

I think it's very important that you lead by example. How do you do that? We do that by bringing in a realistic pension scheme and getting rid of the MPPs' pension plan. We do that by cutting expenditures in this place by 20%. I think we do that, in all fairness, by looking at ourselves. In our federal Parliament, have the members provided good representation to the people of Ontario, as a rule, over the last 25 years with 99 or 103 members? I think the very clear answer is that they have. This is all about leadership by example, something that is very important, something that we haven't seen in too long.

What we're seeing is that at the federal level, for example, they're cutting billions of dollars in transfers to the provinces but aren't cutting significant amounts of money out of government administration. I think that for too long people have seen decision-makers in government exempt themselves from any reductions and haven't seen real leadership by example to say, "The buck is going to stop here, we're going to provide leadership by example and we're going to be the ones to bite the bullet." I think it's a very important message to send to the taxpayers of Ontario that we can do more with less.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I congratulate my colleague from Dovercourt for raising a number of important points, one of which is on proportional representation, which for me has always been an interest. He has expressed that many countries have that system, and I think that guarantees to many a voice they otherwise wouldn't have in their parliaments or legislatures, wherever they are. That's a theme we should explore and give more thought to, and my colleague from Dovercourt has been one of the few who has raised it consistently.

I'm not sure that there's an interest by many in the Legislature to do that in this province, but at least my colleague has had the courage to raise it as a matter of interest. I hope that if there's interest on the other side, in general with the population, we'll be able to explore it.

The other matter he raised that I think is an important one, which the opposition doesn't seem to want to touch, is how this shifts power away from the members into the hands of the Premier, because this is what it really does. The member for Nepean speaks so happily about leadership and having to cut members, as if that were a great thing, but he doesn't really explain how that is going to be helpful to the various constituencies all over the province.

From everything that previous speakers have said, it's not going to help the constituencies whatsoever -- I will be expounding about this -- but it will take power away from members and shift it to the Premier and to his staff and to some of the cabinet ministers.

If the member for Nepean thinks that's democracy, I think he's dead wrong and I think he knows that and the other members of his caucus know that. I'm not quite sure how much democracy there is in their own caucus to begin with. It would be of interest for me to hear some of their members comment on the particular democracy they have in their own caucus.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm delighted to participate in this historic and significant initiative, the Fewer Politicians Act. First and foremost I would like to commend the Premier of Ontario for once again listening to the concerns of Ontario voters and honouring another campaign commitment. This law will reduce the cost and size of government.

This legislation is, as well, a bold new step. We are creating new frontiers of representation where direct democracy is enhanced with the principle of one person, one vote. We are reaffirming that principle.

The city of Etobicoke, the leading edge of Metro, will be directly affected by this legislation. Today there are four Progressive Conservative MPPs representing Etobicoke. Because of this legislation, after the next election there will be three MPPs.

I tell you that we made a promise to the people of Ontario. Although it would be easy to break a promise, as we happened to see so often with the members opposite, we won't do that. We promised taxpayers that we would save them money. Time and again we have delivered on these promises. We have delivered in many ways -- tax cuts first, the elimination of MPPs' gold-plated pension plans, and above all, we promise that we are going to deliver once again with this piece of legislation, the Fewer Politicians Act.

For the past 10 years, Ontarians have said that they are overgoverned, overrepresented, overtaxed, and they feel that every level of government has become too gargantuan, too costly and --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired, sir. The member for Renfrew North.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to congratulate the member for Dovercourt for his remarks. Again, I think there is a confusion in this debate as between the Legislature and the government. Bill 81 seeks to reduce by 20% the size of the Legislature. I have observed before, and let me do so again, that people who have looked at the Canadian and the Ontario political scene and political cultures have observed that one of the very serious problems is the imperial Prime Minister and the imperial Premier, with altogether too much power.

There is nothing in Bill 81, as the member for Dovercourt points out, to deal with that. If you are concerned about too much government, it seems to me you've got to be concerned about the kind of concentrated power that rests with the first minister and his or her unelected advisers, whether that person be Davis, Peterson, Miller or Harris. That's executive government. That is where real decision-making takes place in our system.

I pointed out the other day -- let me do so again -- that in 1990 it only took 37.5% of those who went to the polls to elect Premier Rae. There is absolutely nothing in the Harris electoral manifesto, including Bill 81, to deal with that problem.

The member for Dovercourt asks us to think about electoral reform. I think we ought to concern ourselves with electoral reform if we are concerned about too much power where it really counts. Getting rid of 20% of the Legislature doesn't in any way, shape or form affect the Cabinet Office and the Premier's office. I say to my friend from Dovercourt that last week's results in New Zealand and the traditional electoral results in Israel ought to give one pause about how far we ought to go with proportional representation, but there is a problem that Bill 81 does not deal with.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dovercourt, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Silipo: I appreciate very much the comments and I wish there were more time because I think it's when we get into these exchanges that we begin to see to what extent we either are clear in explaining ourselves or are heard in what we say.

This is not, I say to the member for Nepean with all due respect, to me a question of leading by example. I appreciate that in a government that's cutting everything, every kind of service around, you need to show that you're also cutting the number of MPPs. Fine. If you have to do that because you want to show at least some consistency there, do it, but that doesn't resolve the fundamental problem that we have in terms of the lack of power that this assembly has over the government.

I say that in this instance, but I could have said that -- and in fact I think I did say it the other day -- in talking about all other governments, so I'm not making a comment aimed just at Mike Harris, although Mike Harris is giving us lots of examples that I could use.

Therefore, I appreciate very much the comments of the member for Renfrew North as he reminds us about the difference, and that's exactly the point I've been making, which is that in order to have greater democracy, in order to really have the wishes of the people respected and reflected in an ongoing fashion, not in a symbolic way once every four or four and a half years, you need to have a system which keeps the Legislative Assembly uppermost, which keeps the Premier and the government of the day truly accountable to this institution.

This is all we have, and that's why I continue to believe that a system of proportional representation at least gives us that sense because it gives people a greater ability to influence. Yes, it maybe makes things a little messier, but it's more democratic. It really is much closer to the one person/one vote that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale says he wants to get, so I'll continue to talk about that.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Hastings: The members of the opposition keep talking about the need for fundamental electoral reform. I would simply reiterate and like to continue that this is one of the major ways of achieving fundamental electoral reform, despite what they claim opposite.

If you look at the numbers, at the actual situation, when we came to government there were 130 members in this Legislature. Once the Fewer Politicians Act has been implemented we'll be reduced to 103. We made this a commitment. It means that 27 fewer MPPs will be billing: less salary, less overhead, fewer staff and other related costs. If those aren't important items, the taxpayers of Ontario will remind you that the contrary reality is true. This move will save taxpayers an estimated $11 million annually. That money stays with the taxpayers of this province.

Indeed, Ontario's chief elections officer estimates that we will save an additional $2 million by matching the federal riding boundaries.

We know from experience that the Liberal Party's solution to these problems is to simply add more politicians, more bureaucracy and spend more money. That spend, spend, spend policy has only increased our debt load and our deficit to the point that our children and grandchildren are going to be paying for the opposition party's mismanagement for decades to come.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, please, only one is entitled to deliver a speech. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr Hastings: When I go door-knocking each weekend, people tell me that government has become too expensive, too cumbersome and way too unresponsive to the needs of our citizenry. In response, we have achieved four significant, specific changes: appointed the smallest cabinet in Ontario's history in the last 30 years; reduced the internal administrative costs by $200 million; scrapped the MPPs' gold-plated pension plans and tax-free allowances, further reducing their pay and saving even more money for taxpayers; reduced by $80 million to date the costs of running agencies, boards and commissions. Furthermore, we've imposed strict limits on government advertising.

To me, Bill 81, along with the measures we've just mentioned, proves once again that this government is not afraid to make the challenging decisions that have to be made. We have never chosen the path of least resistance, like the two previous regimes, and we are not going to start now.

Naturally the opposition are very upset, because they do not like the idea of the Harris government saving taxpayers' money. Liberal leader McLeod is a good example, and has publicly stated that to solve this problem she'd probably introduce a More Politicians Act, more representation. How exactly are we going to pay for more politicians? If the Liberals were in power, they would just raise taxes once again.

Ask the member for York South, in the leadership campaign they're undergoing, what he would do if he was elected the leader of their party. A Kennedy quotation is rather insightful and refreshing. Mr Kennedy, asked the question what he would do about this situation: "I would just raise taxes if necessary." It sounds like the same old Grit song except it's sung by a newer Grit from over the way.

Other members from the opposition benches claim the new ridings to the north will be so large that they could not adequately service all their constituents' needs. I just can't buy into that argument. Both the Liberals and the NDP support more government spending, higher taxes, more debt and deficit. You can see it in their answers every day to every situation. It's rather refreshing to see that their federal brethren in Ottawa at least, federal MPs, seem to manage very well in serving their constituents.

My response to them would be that if any opposition MPP feels he or she can't do the task, can't live up to the commitment of the task, then we'll get the Premier to have more Tories running in northern Ontario and they will undertake the task.

I want to reiterate one final point, other than just the enormous savings to the Ontario taxpayer, and that is that the Fewer Politicians Act also recognizes the principle that northern Ontario is unique. Under this plan, northern Ontario has been allotted two more ridings than it would have under a pure representation by population arrangement. An overwhelming majority of my constituents support our government's plan to reduce the size and cost of government.

In fact, one of the local media, the Etobicoke Guardian, supports our government's initiative, saying that it sets the stage and an example for other governments and bureaucracies to follow the same course of action. It is a leading periodical in the city of Etobicoke and sets public opinion and knows what trends are coming up.

Finally, I think this legislation is not only the right thing to be doing but is the best thing we could be doing in terms of advancing the cause of smaller and affordable government in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm glad to have the opportunity to respond to the remarks by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. Clearly, we're seeing a perfect example of how somebody from this part of the province in southern Ontario does not understand northern Ontario, and obviously is reading words written by somebody else as well, I might say.

It's interesting too, because if you go back and you find some quotes by his colleague Ernie Eves -- there was a debate on this issue back in 1987 -- Mr Eves is stated as saying: "In fact, a round trip from the town of Parry Sound to the town of Deep River is an eight-hour undertaking. It goes without saying that this travel time alone would render effective representation by one MPP very difficult, if not virtually impossible." That's Mr Eves speaking almost 10 years ago.

Let me make it very clear to the member: Those of us in the north are very capable of handling our ridings and dealing with them in a very effective way, and we're very proud of what we can do. The problem may be in terms of constituents being able to get to us.

When you have a riding such as Thunder Bay, such as Port Arthur which will become Port Arthur-Nipigon, we understand, we're talking about adding eight other communities -- Nipigon, Red Rock, Geraldton, Longlac -- a whole number of communities that we will make every attempt to meet and greet and go and see, but it's a question of them being able to get to us and the member obviously does not understand that and obviously has no idea about the reality of distances, the reality of even literally trying to reach us by a 1-800 number.

We are more than capable of handling our ridings. We will continue to handle our ridings in a very effective fashion. But it's very clear that by reducing the number of ridings in northern Ontario from 15 to 10 they are simply trying to reduce the voice we can put across to northerners, the voice we want to send along down here to Queen's Park.

Clearly the member here has no understanding what the reality of distance and geography does to our constituents, but please be assured our voices will be just as loud and clear. We will fight just as vigorously, but by no means will this be as fair a setup for the people we represent.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to emphasize in response to the member that the comments that are being made on this side of the House are not being made on behalf of members of the Legislature; they're being made on behalf of the members of our constituencies, our constituents, the people who live in Ontario.

The member makes the argument that by doing this we are cutting government. We are not. We are cutting the Legislature. He says we will be saving money. He points out $11 million and perhaps another $2 million. But I think it's important, as has been said previously in this debate, to recognize that this is a companion piece. The other piece of legislation that is coming later is on referenda. The argument is being made that because of advances in technology the electors out there should be able to make decisions directly, by direct democracy, by voting on the issues of the day that are of utmost importance.

The point is that this does not save money. The point is that a referendum at minimum would cost between $23 million and $40 million, according to Mr Bailie, the chief election officer. In one referendum you spend at least twice as much as you save in this whole process of lowering the number of seats. So it isn't about saving money.

What we're talking about is how we properly represent the people of Ontario and how the people of Ontario properly have a say in the decisions of government. It can be argued that direct democracy is the way to go, but if that is the agenda, then it is not an agenda about saving money. Government, legislatures, democracy cost money. The question is, how do we get the best representation for that money?

Mr Conway: It has been much said in this debate that what the Ontario Conservative government of Mr Harris has done is precisely what the federal parliament did in its most recent Representation Act. That is not true in one very important respect. In its most recent federal redistribution the Parliament of Canada, in my view quite properly, made specific allowance for large areas like the territories and rural communities like Prince Edward Island. It was that calculation that was clear.

Prince Edward Island, for example, was guaranteed four seats with the so-called senatorial clause. Prince Edward Island has 132,000 people. The Yukon and Northwest Territories are guaranteed three seats in the federal proposal, though they've only got 95,000 people in the two territories. My point is that the federal plan made at least some considerable allowance for one of the fundamental realities of Ontario and Canadian life, namely, geography.

I accept entirely that geography alone is not to determine the electoral map -- there must be a very real regard for representation by population -- but I say again that the federal redistribution made some reasonable effort to come to terms with the very real problems and pressures of Canadian geography. We make no provisions for our own Prince Edward Island and for our own Yukon Territory. That is my major complaint with Bill 81, and let me say that we as a Legislature, and you as a government, play with fire if we fail to understand the regional imperative in the Canadian political culture.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Our colleague the member for Renfrew North, as is the Liberal wont, has come down on both sides of the issue, and that can be very painful, I'm sure. The bottom line is that the only reason the non-partisan federal electoral commission recognizes such dramatic inequities as the number of seats in Prince Edward Island is because they are entrenched in the Constitution and in its predecessor.

The bottom line is that there are no similar constraints anywhere else across Canada outside of the Maritimes, and so it is a totally flawed argument to suggest that because things are messed up in Prince Edward Island we should continue to have complete foulups here in Ontario.

The bottom line is that there is a consideration. They did make allowances for the geography in northern Ontario. A strict representation by population would have had nine seats; there are instead 11. That is an 18% allowance. If your suggestion is that the people in southern Ontario should have their vote depreciated by even more than 18%, then please come out and articulate that clearly. To couch this in terms of noble rhetoric about the Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of population throughout Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that the greatest variance under the new boundaries will be a ratio of from 1 to 1.4. As it stands right now, the ratio is from 1 to 5. There are ridings in northern Ontario where members have five times the voting power per person that somebody in, say, Markham or Woodbridge has. I don't think the people in the towns of Markham and Woodbridge should have their vote depreciated just to make allowances of the extent that are being proposed by the other two parties. An 18% differential obviously recognizes the different costs and the different time considerations for members in the north, and that's allowance enough.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, you have two minutes.

Mr Hastings: It's interesting to note that members opposite can't seem to get their arguments straight. For example, they claim that we represent constituents or voters. Fine, that's a good starting principle. But we do not represent geography. We do not represent the Canadian Shield. I've never had a letter, and I don't think any of the members opposite ever had a letter, written by somebody that is the Canadian Shield or rock itself. Really, really nonsense.

Mr Wildman: Did you ever have to travel across it, you moron?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma, please.

Mr Wildman: I withdraw the remark, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hastings: For somebody who comes from southern Ontario it might be rather revealing if the members opposite listened a little more. For example, in terms of distance, I have been in northern Ontario countless times and therefore I would suggest we're a little more intellectually connected than perhaps even the member for Algoma. It takes 21 hours to drive, almost without getting out of your car to get gas, from Thunder Bay to Toronto, if you had to do it and do it within the speed limit, and I've done it at least twice. In terms of distance and representation, we're intimately understanding of the geography of northern Ontario.

It seems passing bizarre that the members opposite, especially the member for Algoma, speak about the Legislature as if it were some separate, independent and isolated component of the whole governmental process when it is part of government. It makes decisions. He's been here for at least 22 years. He was a minister so he was part of the executive council. Is he arguing that the executive council isn't even part of government, part of the bureaucracy? They're all interconnected.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): This is an ideal time to jump into this particular debate. I want to speak to this debate because I think it's important to understand that withdrawing the services of 27 rural and northern ridings in this Legislature has substantial drawbacks. The government argues that this is a major cost saving, that this was a promise and that if it's good enough for the feds, it's good enough for us. Why should we be different?

I believe there are substantial differences between the federal and provincial governments. Federal issues, by their very nature, have become very limited. As provinces continue to wrest control of various programs and responsibilities, federal jurisdiction will become even more limited. With that limited responsibility comes a federal riding redistribution to deal with those issues and constituents appropriately.

Provincial politicians are dealing with more issues than ever before. They are dealing with municipal government more than ever before. Members are inclined to deal with all these issues on a much more constrained member's budget. I find it difficult to believe that adding 20,000 to 25,000 constituents to a member's caseload in these circumstances will go any measure towards grass-roots representation.

Having spoken with one particular constituent in the past few days on this particular issue, I want to reiterate his concerns with regard to the issues:

"Everywhere I call I get voice mail. As the government consolidates more systems into less, I continue to find myself more distance from government. Yet I pay more. Does this mean I'll get voice mail at your office too? Well, I guess it makes sense when you withdraw as many services as they are from rural and northern Ontario. What would you need a voice in rural or northern Ontario for in their minds? A voice that no longer exists."

Many of the members I have spoken to on the government side tell me, "Pete, this was a promise we made in the Common Sense Revolution and we intend to keep our promises." I understand what you're saying completely, because like you I have made promises myself to my constituents -- not to the party, not to the leadership, not to the government, but to my constituen