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

April 24, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L180 - Thu 24 Apr 1997 / Jeu 24 Avr 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN ONTARIO

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PERTH COUNTY ECONOMY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

SCHOOL BOARDS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

SPEAKER'S RULING

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

SEPARATE SCHOOL SYSTEM

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

PUBLIC HOUSING

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FINANCING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

JUSTICE SYSTEM

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

RENT REGULATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

CASINOS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

SCHOOL BOARDS

HOUSING COOPERATIVES

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

FIRE SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

BEAR HUNTING

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I move private member's notice of motion number 44:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should keep its election promises to the people of northern Ontario found in its election document entitled, A Voice for the North; by giving northerners a greater say on policies which affect them, found on page 3 of its election document; by preserving and enhancing health care services for the people of northern Ontario, and guaranteeing 1995 levels of health care spending, found on page 6 of its election document; by guaranteeing funding for classroom education at 1995 levels, found on page 7 of its election document and by working closely with northern municipalities to forge a new and better working relationship.

As part of that new relationship, the government committed to end the downloading of services to the municipal level and that no new mandates will be enacted unless appropriate funding is allocated, found on page 13 of its election document.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member has 10 minutes.

Mr Miclash: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise in the Legislature this morning to raise a good number of issues of concern, issues of concern that I faced throughout northern Ontario as I travelled the region. As I indicated in the resolution, what we in northern Ontario are looking for is for Mr Harris to follow through on a good number of his commitments on the plan he had for northern Ontario, which he entitled A Voice for the North. Actually, what we found is that, as in the Premier's Common Sense Revolution, this Voice for the North was nothing but a good number of empty promises.

People in northern Ontario are not being fooled by the Tories' slick made-in-America election-type propaganda.

I often think back to when members from the Conservative caucus, along with Mr Gilchrist, travelled to northern Ontario, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, the member for Simcoe East. They came up on what they called a focus tour. It was really kind of an interesting tour. When they landed in Red Lake they had a couple of very brief meetings. They got the media upset with them. The headline reads here in the Red Lake District News that "Mike Harris Focus Tour Shuns Press and Public in Red Lake."

The

article goes on to say: "Fact-finding trips generally involve meetings with the public and press representatives, however, Pat Sayeau, president of the Kenora riding PC Party excluded the fourth estate from meeting with the touring MPPs for reasons known only to himself."

Then it went on to say, "Is the PC Party so bereft of members in Red Lake that they could not hold a public meeting or does PC stand for private consultations?"

As I indicated, these members arrived in Red Lake, had a couple of meetings, then hopped on an airplane and went to a camp up north of Red Lake to go fishing. I tell you that the folks in Red Lake were quite upset by that.

What we're seeing here today is they came back with a number of recommendations, they called it A Voice for the North, and they're not following through on any of these particular recommendations and suggestions that they have made. In essence, they're ignoring the concerns of northerners, and they seem to have just started doing that the day they got elected.

We know that northern Ontario's a region that is created and sustained by the strength and will of the people who live there. Generations of northerners have actually dreamed of building our distinct region into one that's economically strong, socially just, proud of its diversity and characterized by integrity and compassion. Unfortunately, in the past two years this government has not allowed northerners to move ahead in that direction.

As we know, our health care system in the north is presently in upheaval because of the Harris government's cuts to our hospital system. These cuts are hurting real people throughout northern Ontario. We must remember that during the election A Voice for the North said very clearly that a Harris government would preserve and enhance health care services for northern Ontario residents. We're certainly not finding that. We're finding an erosion in services. We're finding fewer services, fewer staff to meet the basic needs of patients in the health care system.

All you have to do is take a look at many of the headlines in the papers from across northern Ontario. This one: "Cuts Will Have Serious Impact on Patient Care"; Ontario Hospital Association president David MacKinnon goes on to say, "The situation now is one where many hospitals will be forced to cut back on services in an ad hoc manner while other health providers are not yet in place to handle the increased patient demand." Another one: "Extra Funding Not a Gift."

We had the Minister of Northern Development come into the region to announce extra funding after the hospital had been cut. The minister goes throughout northern Ontario saying that he's reinvesting. We had the assistant executive director of the Red Lake district hospital saying, "This is not a gift; it will be a rebate in the reduction." The Minister of Health first of all cuts the budget, then the Minister of Northern Development comes along and pretends he's giving a gift, when it was really a reduction in the what they were getting cut by the Minister of Health.

Bob Muir, who is the executive director of the Lake of the Woods District Hospital, goes on to say that the cut would be anywhere from $100,000 to $1 million locally, a great amount of uncertainty. "If our cut is huge, it isn't possible to provide all the services," he says. He goes on to outline a number of services that would be taken out.

We heard this government talk about classroom funding to be kept at 1995 levels. All you have to do is go into any school in northern Ontario, ask any teacher, ask anybody on the front line as to the effect this government, over the past two years, has had on classroom education and you'll find that there are changes that they cannot handle. We're finding that through teacher burnout; we're finding that the services just aren't there.

Yes, the committee did travel to Thunder Bay and they heard the presentations on Bill 104. The former parliamentary assistant, who apparently is now a fired parliamentary assistant, did say, and he said it a number of times, that the boundaries in terms of school boards were not carved in stone. What happens to him? He comes back to Toronto and now we find out that he's fired. This is a man who came back and told the Minister of Education that the boundary from Thunder Bay to the Manitoba border was just not totally possible and it just didn't make sense.

We often hear that a lot of policies that affect the north are created in the Premier's office here in southern Ontario, and as we've moved these two years we've found that out more and more. Again, I go back to the recent firing of the parliamentary assistant for Northern Development. Here was a person who travelled the north, who heard the concerns of the north. He brings them back to the Premier, tries to tell the Premier about these concerns and what does the Premier do? Fires him. It just shows us that this government is mainly operated out of the Premier's office.

In terms of not dumping on municipalities --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are members talking too loudly, not in their seats, and it's disturbing. I'd appreciate your attention, your order, please.

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, they obviously don't care about the north. We can see that. They fired the parliamentary assistant, who was the person we really relied on to get the message through to Mr Harris. They fired him, and obviously my Conservative friends don't care about the issues I'm raising here today.

Again, we take a look at what Mr Harris said: "A Mike Harris government will work closely with northern municipalities to forge a new and better working relationship." Mr Speaker, I challenge you to go into northern Ontario and find one mayor or reeve, find one councillor who will actually tell you that Mike Harris has worked closely for a working relationship here.

All we have to do is take a look at the dumping of the roads on to the municipalities. I raised it with the Minister of Transportation the other day. I said: "Minister, they're not accepting them. What are you going to do?" His answer to me was: "They've got 'em. I don't care whether they're going to accept it or not, they've got 'em. They're responsible for these roads now." That's just another area where this government has decided what's best for northern Ontario and that's going to be it.

That brings me to the infrastructure inaction by this government. I consider that to be very shameful. Every province in Canada has signed on with the federal government for the infrastructure program. What has Ontario said? "No." They don't want it. What do the people in northern Ontario say? "It was one of the best programs we've ever had." If you speak to any municipal leader, they're saying: "What's going on?

This is a program that we were able to do a good number of things with." Kenora, Keewatin, Jaffray Melick were all looking forward to moving ahead with sewer and water projects, with road projects, projects that are very much needed in northern Ontario. What has this government said? No, they're not willing to move ahead with that with the provincial government.

In terms of the new relationship, all we've found is this government downloading on municipal governments. I keep telling the taxpayers that eventually they will pay. Mike Harris so often said, "There's only one taxpayer." We're going to find out that taxpayer is certainly going to be paying for what this government is doing in terms of downloading.

In wrapping up, I would just like to say that we don't disagree that change needs to be made, but I think what we really want is a government that will govern by consensus, a government that will allow the parliamentary assistant to go and gather information, bring it back to the government, which will listen to it, act on it and not fire the parliamentary assistant. We're not looking for a government that's run by gimmick. We're looking for a government in northern Ontario that's representing the province that is going to listen to the people of northern Ontario and develop a consensus for action and that will act on that consensus.

I was privileged to present these points of view and I look forward to the others as well.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to participate in this debate because I'm very concerned about what the Conservative government has done in northern Ontario in the months since it came to government in June 1995. Prior to that election, the Conservative Party, being led by a member from northern Ontario, indicated that they were going to provide a new voice for northern Ontario in the provincial government if they were elected.

We found that indeed the member for Nipissing has provided a new voice for North Bay in the government and that indeed he has seen the movement of education officials to North Bay from Sudbury; he has seen the concentration of the OPP communications network in North Bay from all over northeastern Ontario; he has seen the increase in certain correctional positions in North Bay. So I guess the member for Nipissing would argue that he has done a good job for North Bay. I'm not sure.

It's interesting, though, that while the Premier is actively shutting down offices across northern Ontario -- MNR offices, MTO offices -- actively shutting them down, he complains when it appears that the federal government might be considering shutting down the Norad operation in North Bay and saying that this is unfair. I just don't understand. What is the difference between shutting down MNR across northern Ontario and shutting down the Norad operations in North Bay? It sounds like the same thing to me.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's in North Bay. That's why.

Mr Wildman: We've seen a number of offices, and MNR is a good example -- I hear the member for Timiskaming commenting. What has happened with the offices in Temagami? How many MNR offices have been shut down there completely? And everybody has been moved to North Bay. I guess it's just a coincidence that the Premier comes from North Bay. I'm sure that's the case.

But I want to deal specifically with the resolution that was presented by my friend from Kenora: "...by preserving and enhancing health care services for the people of northern Ontario." In my riding, in central Algoma, we have two rural hospitals: the Matthews Memorial Hospital in Richards Landing and the Thessalon Hospital. They are part of the Sault area hospitals' operating plan, which was approved by the Minister of Health for 1996-97.

What they have done in these two hospitals is close all of the inpatient beds. They closed them and they said they will maintain 24-hour emergency service, but they only have one nurse per shift on duty. So if there's a real emergency -- an automobile accident with a number of people experiencing trauma -- it will be impossible for that one nurse to service all of the patients. Some of them will have to be transported to Sault Ste Marie.

Thessalon is an hour's drive from Sault Ste Marie. In the wintertime it's very difficult. In Thessalon we have a number of sawmills. There could be accidents there, industrial accidents. In both cases a number of senior citizens have retired to those areas mainly because they knew there was a hospital immediately available to them if they had a heart attack or whatever and there was an emergency and they could get to them in time.

This government, with its approval of the operating plan for the Sault area hospitals, has effectively closed down the hospitals in this area. Now the minister got up and said, because of his concerns about what's happening in the Bruce Peninsula, I think, there was going to be a review of access to hospital services for rural and northern single-hospital communities. I welcome that.

But in response to that, I wrote the minister and said: "Is this going to affect what's happening in Thessalon and Richards Landing? Will you put on hold the closure of the inpatient beds in Thessalon and Richards Landing and will you ensure real emergency service on a 24-hour basis?" He wrote back and said, "Well, that plan has already been approved," as if to say because it has been approved his review doesn't take into account these two hospitals.

This is an indication of the lack of commitment of this government to northern Ontario communities and to health care in northern Ontario. We've seen the debate that is ongoing about classroom education, how this government has redefined classroom education not to include all kinds of things that are important in terms of students' achievement.

Again, in central Algoma, I would point out, the board has had to cut the junior kindergarten program from every day half-day during the week to every other day full-day to try and save on transportation costs. Next year, if they face further cuts with this amalgamation under Bill 104 that was passed yesterday, the amalgamation with a board in Sault Ste Marie that doesn't now have junior kindergarten, they probably will eliminate the program. It'll be gone. It has been existence in central Algoma for over 20 years. Central Algoma was one of the first boards in Ontario, certainly one of the first rural boards, to establish such a program.

That's again an indication of the lack of commitment on the part of this government to keeping its promises to guarantee funding for classroom education. Junior kindergarten is threatened and it's just one of many programs, music, phys ed, arts programs, that are threatened in small northern Ontario school systems.

Downloading: I'll just close by saying this. I was recently at a municipal leaders' meeting with officials from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There was a planner there from the ministry in Toronto.

He was pointing out to the municipal leaders that from now on they will make decisions on approvals for severances and new subdivisions and so on, and they all welcomed that, until he pointed out to them that up to now all of these proposals have been circulated among the ministries for written comment and then the ministries have advised whether this should be approved on the basis of things like land use planning issues -- floodplains, agricultural land preservation, these kinds of things.

This official pointed out that from now on there will be a lot less of this kind of scrutiny because he said, and I'm quoting him, "The Ministry of Natural Resources doesn't have enough staff left to be able to do the job." He didn't single out any other ministry. He said, "The Ministry of Natural Resources doesn't have enough staff to do the job." So I said, "What happens now if because of that an approval is made and then someone finds out they are on a floodplain?" in Goulais River, for instance, in that area, which is prone to flooding much like the Red River Valley is, unfortunately, right now.

I said: "What happens if someone builds a house and then a couple of years later they get flooded? Who's liable?" He said, "The municipality is liable, because they're the ones making the decision."

Again, there is downloading of liability and costs to the municipalities, a cutting of the Ministry of Natural Resources. We could talk about the Ministry of Transportation too and the downloading of roads to the municipal sector. This government has cut more jobs in northern Ontario than I have ever experienced in the whole time I have served in this assembly. Not only is it not meeting its commitments to ensure services in the north, health, education and municipal services, it is cutting those services, cutting funding to the extent that we have had increased unemployment and tremendous lack of morale in northern Ontario.

The people of northern Ontario have given up on this government. I recently read an editorial from the Kapuskasing Northern Times which said, "If this is what it's like to have a northerner as Premier, give us a southern Ontario person as Premier again."

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): As the newly appointed parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and as someone who was born and raised in Sault Ste Marie, it gives me pleasure to speak on this particular resolution and to support, certainly in spirit, this resolution that the member for Kenora has presented, because it's an opportunity to list the accomplishments that our government has achieved since taking office. I want to thank the member for allowing us to remind the people of northern Ontario that we remain committed to the policies that they helped develop in A Voice for the North.

In Mr Miclash's resolution, he speaks about several items which our party addressed in our election document A Voice for the North. This was the document that he referred to, and since I'm new to the portfolio, I researched this issue to see what the opposition had promised the north during the last election. Astonishingly, there was nothing. I didn't see anything in the NDP or the Liberal platforms that specifically went to issues in the north. We did. The fact that our caucus travelled to northern Ontario -- we promised that we could implement the elements of the Common Sense policies outlined in A Voice for the North and we are now delivering on those promises.

The first part of the resolution deals with giving northerners a greater say in policy-making, as stated on page 3 of A Voice for the North. Again, the creation of the document itself proves that we're listening to the concerns of northerners and the fact that the opposition parties had no such commitment.

My colleagues from Simcoe East and Grey-Owen Sound, when they were in opposition, launched the northern focus tour to begin these consultations directly with the people of the north. My colleague from Simcoe East will elaborate on some of those shortly.

I point out that on my first day on the job as a PA to the minister I travelled to Timmins. In fact, on Tuesday of this week, at the mines and minerals symposium, I met with Mayor Power of Timmins on some of the transportation issues and made an announcement on the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. The opposition neatly forgets the fact that we were the ones who restored the heritage funds that the opposition cut.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): How much have you spent so far?

Mr Spina: As a matter of fact, those funds are now in the process of being disposed. I authorized a $160,000 cheque on Tuesday for a project that's being planned for Timmins, as a matter of fact. As the beginning, I'm already scheduled to travel --

Mr Martin: Show us the money.

Mr Spina: Check the press and look at the photograph of the cheque that we presented.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would remind the member speaking to address his comments through the Speaker. I would appreciate it. I would remind those others that speaking goes in rotation. Right now it's not your rotation.

Mr Spina: By the way, Timmins was also the site chosen for the northern Ontario caucus meeting of all MPs and MPPs from northern Ontario. It was a productive session and one that, I add, was boycotted by the opposition members of this Legislature. Furthermore, for all the support that we understand they have for the north, I see five members in the House here right now for this particular debate.

One of the things that we want to talk about to ensure the unique needs of the north are addressed: A reformed Ministry of Northern Development and Mines now serves an important role in reviewing and recommending the changes to policies of the other provincial ministries before policies are approved. Further, the northern development office network of 29 field offices, created by the PC government back in 1970, has been kept intact in order to ensure that northerners have access to the provincial government.

In closing, I would like to go over the promises that we kept in A Voice for the North which the member for Kenora seems to forget. Page 22: Promote tourism through improved infrastructure. Done through the highways budget and the heritage fund. Page 22: Help northern communities develop regional tourism attractions. Done: cut a $160,000 cheque two days ago. Page 26 says to improve the northern highway system through more capital funding. Done.

In the mining sector we promised to do the following: Page 19: Regulations on mine reclamation will be changed in order to encourage new investment. Done. Page 20: Government-mandated costs and regulations affecting mining will be reduced. Done. Page 20: Ontario Hydro rates frozen. Done. Page 20: Mining taxes and fees will be frozen. Once again, done.

As you can see, our government, led by Minister Hodgson, is committed to fulfilling the promises made in A Voice for the North. Moreover, we remain committed to implementing the Common Sense policies as suggested by the people of northern Ontario, not by our government, so that their voices are brought to Queen's Park. I look forward with great enthusiasm to be repatriated and serve the members of the north as a member of the PC caucus and as a member of this government. I look forward to the opportunity to support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ramsay: I'm very pleased to be able to rise in my place today to speak in support of this motion that has been brought forward by my colleague the member for Kenora. I am very pleased that he has used his private member's time to again speak up for northern Ontario and give others of his colleagues around the House here the opportunity to remind people about how important northern Ontario is to the life and economy of this province.

Coming on the remarks of what I've just heard from the government member, I can't think of any other government in the history of this province that has done more to ruin the life of northern Ontarians than this Harris government here today. When we look back in a few years at the Harris government's record in regard to northern Ontario, I am sure it will stand out on its own against all other governments, even other Conservative governments, as mistreating northern Ontario as no other in this province.

I think it's very easy to show that and I'm going to start talking about that in a few minutes, the way this government is basically saying, "We're just going to pull out all support of the north."

It must be important to remember and remind people that when I talk about support for the north, it's northern Ontario that basically started the economy of this province, through its lumbering and mining industry, and still contributes a fair share towards the economy of this province. I think that's very important to keep in mind when we talk about some of the needs and concerns we have for northern Ontario.

First of all, the biggest change that's going to happen here -- and I think it's interesting when the parliamentary assistant mentions the number of northern members -- the Harris government is going to reduce the number of northern members in this House, after the next election, by one third. We're going to be down from 15 seats, north of the French River, to 10. Again it's the Harris government that has given a disproportionate cut to the representation of northern Ontario in the next Legislature compared to other parts of the province. That's going to weaken our voice, and I think that's a sad day for northern Ontario. I know the vast majority of northerners share that.

Talk about lack of support for the north. Because of the cyclical nature of our economy, that we are dependent by and large upon resource extraction in the mines and in the forests and in the fields of northern Ontario, there has been a very significant government presence in northern Ontario. Not only has that made us feel very much a part of this province, with the vast distance away from the capital that we are, but also those government jobs have given a basic underpinning to our economy. Right now, what we've seen in the last two years is a decimation of those government jobs across the north.

The Ministry of Natural Resources was sort of the government presence for years and years in northern Ontario, long before we ever had a Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. It was a presence almost in every town and hamlet of our northern region. Today we've seen, up to this year, that ministry decimated by one half, and again a disproportionate share of job loss in northern Ontario from that ministry.

We've also seen job losses in the Ministry of Transportation. While we may only have about 10% of the population of Ontario, we have a vast highway network in 90% of the geographical area of our province, vast distances that workers have to travel to their jobs, that families have to travel on visits to family across the north. We depend upon a very strong transportation presence to keep those highways in good repair. We certainly haven't seen that in the last couple of years.

We've just seen last week the latest round of job cuts from MTO across the north, and I believe, and I know my colleagues believe, that we'll see again another succession of deterioration of northern roads across the north. This is not only a cost to people's automobiles and an inconvenience, it also becomes a safety hazard and it jeopardizes people's lives.

Talking about highways, it's really interesting to note, with this downloading exercise that wasn't even included in the mega-week announcements from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, starting last fall and continuing this spring, that the Ministry of Transportation has downloaded the responsibility of many of the provincial highways across the north. What's so interesting about this is that we're talking about massive stretches of highways, such as 72 kilometres in the city of Timmins, which is the largest geographic city in this country.

It was the Conservative government of before that created this large city of Timmins, that forced that, and now you've given a wonderful present to the people of the city of Timmins of an additional 72 kilometres of road to maintain.

Yes, they're going to get a one-time cash gift to try to maintain this, but that money is going to run out in a couple of years of maintenance. In the next five, 10 and 15 years, when it's going to be necessary for that highway to be rebuilt, where is the city of Timmins going to get that money to maintain that road? It wasn't their fault that they became the largest city in Canada, but now the province is saying, "We're abandoning all that road network," that connects people right across the north, to the northwest through Highway 101, through Timmins, to Lake Superior, but that portion is going to be given to Timmins and it's going to be their responsibility.

Another example of that is in my riding, in the town of Haileybury, where in the late 1960s another Conservative government decided to build a bypass to Highway 11 through the Tri-town area of Cobalt, Haileybury and New Liskeard along Lake Timiskaming. They decided to build that road about six kilometres outside of town, and now because of that government decision, this Harris government has decided to make a gift of that connecting highway to the town. So now that town has an additional, with all the different connecting links, about 16 kilometres of highway.

They're going to get a cash infusion to start that process off, but in a couple of years again, with our thaw-and-frost cycle in northern Ontario, which is very detrimental to our highway system, it is going to have to be rebuilt. Where is the town of Haileybury going to get the funds to build that highway? It's just not going to be there. I certainly hope the people in my area remember that it was the Harris government that delivered those presents to them, because they are certainly going to feel the cost of that on their local tax bill as the years go buy.

The latest round of announcements has been the resident geologists' offices across northern Ontario. In my riding the resident geologist, Mr Jim Ireland, will be taken out of the town of Cobalt. Cobalt has just had a resurgence of its mining because of the removal of the land caution that had been placed on the Temagami-South Timiskaming area over the last 25 years. This area now, because of this new opening, is starting to take off, and what does this government do? They close down the expertise and the body of knowledge that has been housed in the resident geologist's office in Cobalt.

They're going to put it 70 or 80 miles up the road in Kirkland Lake, which is going to make it very inconvenient for the people in the area who are now trying to find some new wealth. It's interesting, because there hasn't been a mining job for years in Cobalt. There is a new interest there. It was Cobalt that opened up the north in 1903, in the very beginning, when silver was discovered. It was the start of mining in northern Ontario.

I don't know what's wrong with this government, but it seems to have forgotten that there is a land mass north of North Bay. Maybe it's because the Premier's riding is in Nipissing and North Bay that that's it, and the world sort of ends there. Certainly for northern Ontario that's the perception, that the Harris government has forgotten all of us who live north of North Bay.

I hope this resolution that my colleague from Kenora has brought forward might be the start to remind this government that we in the north are big contributors to this economy, we love this province, we certainly want to stay as part of this province, and we'd like this government to stop ignoring us.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I am pleased to stand in my place and support the resolution from the member, Mr Miclash, on the election promises that Mike Harris made throughout the north and has broken, every single one of them. He's destroying the north, whether it's education, whether it's health care, whether it's transportation.

They started off by one of the major decisions they made which is affecting northern Ontario, which was to shut down norOntair. Seventeen communities are still scrambling around after norOntair was shut down about a year ago, trying to get the private sector to come in and give proper air service, and it's not happening in a lot of areas. This was a commitment that Mike Harris made to Bearskin Airlines, that if he became Premier, he would shut down norOntair and Bearskin would be expected to pick up the service that norOntair was doing. It's not happening.

They've cut $6.5 million from the Ministry of Transportation winter road maintenance budget, and now over the last couple of months we find out that they're transferring large amounts of Highway 11, the Trans-Canada Highway -- they call them connecting links -- that are going through the communities of Kapuskasing, Hearst and Cochrane. The property owners, the taxpayers in those communities, are going to be expected to pick up the tab for all the transports and the amount of traffic that is going from one end of Canada to the other and going through these northern communities.

It's very unfair to the people of the north. This is not what people in the north were expecting when Mike Harris was travelling through the election campaign in 1995.

He was in the hospital in Kapuskasing in the boardroom and he promised that there would only be a few dollars cut in administration costs. There could be savings there. Now we find out that a whole wing of the Sensenbrenner Hospital in Kapuskasing is closed down, they're closing down a wing in the Cochrane hospital, they're closing down a wing in the Hearst hospital, and 18% to 20% of the operating costs are being reduced by the Minister of Health. This was not what was promised during the election campaign.

We know that 2,100 MNR people have been laid off or fired, and if they weren't, some of them were moved to North Bay, which is Mike Harris's riding. That was not promised during the election campaign.

They've closed all 11 fire attack bases in northern Ontario. Northern Ontario needs these fire stations to be able to fight the fires. Now we see flooding in Manitoba; we know some of that is going to happen in northern Ontario. You're reducing the MNR and northern development and mines budgets: 126 positions chopped from northern development and mines, $27 million gone out of the budget.

Everywhere we look they're cutting jobs and eliminating people. They took five seats out of northern Ontario so that they could move them down to southern Ontario and overall reduce the legislative members, but one third coming out of northern Ontario is just too much for having proper representation in the north.

I'd just like to say -- I want to leave some time for my colleague -- that we're supporting this resolution and we think there's been too many broken promises on behalf of Mike Harris and his Conservative government. They will never elect any members from the north at the rate they're going.

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I would like to begin by stating that I believe that the promises made to the people of northern Ontario in A Voice for the North not only must be kept, but are being kept and will continue to be kept by this government.

Although as the member for Bruce I do not represent a northern riding, I do represent a rural riding and one that abuts the northern territory, and I share similar issues, concerns and challenges.

I am proud that my constituents have recognized that the status quo is no longer acceptable, that in order to have a prosperous future, we must not only accept change but take a leadership role in implementing it and that locally created solutions are the best option for our communities.

In my many conversations with the minister and as a member of the caucus committee that deals with northern development, I know at first hand of the minister's commitment to ensuring that the voices of northerners are heard. As a government, we are well on our way to fulfilling each of the commitments made with respect to education in A Voice for the North. We are implementing changes to ensure that tax dollars are focused directly on the classroom, where students will benefit most.

Our objective continues to be to establish a high-quality, equitable, accountable and cost-effective education system. The changes which have been announced will help to create a more effective system and focus resources on students and the classroom while reducing the financial burden to the local taxpayer.

Forging a new and better working relationship with northern, rural and urban municipalities is a key component of the government's plan to shift taxation and program responsibilities. These changes will enable better services to be provided at lower cost to all taxpayers: northern, urban and rural.

Of tremendous importance to all of us of course is health care. In A Voice for the North, we promised: "In order to preserve and enhance health care services for the people of northern Ontario, a Mike Harris government will guarantee current levels of health care spending. Not one penny will be cut."

We have not only lived up to that promise this year, but we have exceeded it. Despite drastic cuts in federal transfer payments for health care, this government increased the health care budget from $17.4 billion to $17.7 billion. At the same time, we promised that we would aggressively root out health-care-related waste, abuse, fraud and duplication, and that we would reinvest the savings in the health care system to improve access and quality to the people of Ontario.

I can assure you that the list of health care reinvestments in northern Ontario alone is impressive. To name just a few: Physicians in northern and rural communities now receive $70 an hour for working nights, weekends and holidays in hospital emergency departments. The Sudbury General Hospital and the Timmins and District Hospital received the first two MRIs in northern Ontario. A reinvestment of almost $1 million was made for kidney patients in Thunder Bay and Kenora. First nations communities received funding for friendship centres, palliative care and supportive housing.

As a tremendous boost to Thunder Bay hospital and health services renewal the Minister of Health and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines announced a reinvestment of $59.4 million for improved health care. This is in the form of world-class facilities at the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital's Port Arthur site and a new forensic psychiatry unit and new spaces for the revitalized St Joseph's General Hospital.

Even as we speak, Northern Development and Mines Minister Chris Hodgson is making a major health care announcement in Sudbury that involves a substantial reinvestment in cancer care in the north.

As these reinvestments are made, however, it is important to recognize that additional new resources do not exist to allow us to stop finding savings in our hospitals before integrating and implementing reinvestment strategies. These changes must be undertaken concurrently, and that is what this government is doing.

We recognize that rural and northern health care must be considered differently than urban centres. We know that quality care, access and economic considerations are of primary importance in making restructuring decisions. As an example of how a community can proactively work together to prepare a model for the health care restructuring commission's consideration, I am pleased to share my riding's experience to date.

In my riding, the Grey-Bruce District Health Council and the restructuring steering subcommittee, the South Bruce-Grey Health Restructuring Alliance, the doctors, nurses and other health care providers, and most importantly, the consumers of health care services in the Bruce and Grey area, are building our solution. To date, we have been able to agree on single governance and administration for 10 hospitals, on fiscal savings and bed reductions. We are addressing, however, the need for integrated service delivery and are working to provide this as part of our plan for restructured health care in our community.

I am confident this plan would allow all hospitals in Bruce and Grey to remain open with beds and emergency care, while still achieving the necessary savings.

As I've said in the past, I believe it is important that we all work together to ensure that the final blueprint for health care in communities and across Ontario is one that provides the highest quality care in the right place at the right time.

I am pleased and proud that the people of Bruce and Grey are working towards this goal as a team and I would encourage communities in the north and across Ontario to do the same. Thank you very much.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm very pleased today to have the opportunity to stand up and support the resolution of my colleague the member for Kenora calling on the government to maintain its commitment to its promises made in A Voice for the North. It's certainly interesting to hear the new parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development, the member for Brampton North, say that he will be supporting this. I hope he understands that indeed what he will be supporting is, in essence, a call to recognize that commitments have not been followed through, promises have been broken.

The fact is I recognize that it's a new job for the parliamentary assistant. I look forward to welcoming him up to the north next week for the meeting of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association annual gathering in Fort Frances where I think he'll understand and hear a lot of the messages that his former colleague from Grey-Owen Sound heard and listened to. As a result of his forthrightness, he was removed from his position.

I trust that the member for Brampton North will show the same fortitude that his predecessor in this position did show, because the important thing that needs to be made very clear in terms of A Voice for the North is that there is a whole list of issues that obviously -- we are very clear on the fact that promises have been broken.

The major issue from my point of view, the one I'll address today, is the fact that there has been a promise of consultation by the Premier, by this government and by the northern development minister on the issues that affect northerners, a promise that indeed there would be no decisions made without consultation of northerners. The fact is that's the one element that's consistently not been there.

This government, of course, has its own concept of consultation, which is they make the decision and then they go through what is often just a farce of consultation, as we saw with Bill 81, the Fewer Politicians Act, where they did not listen to the presentations made by everybody in the province, and especially those in the north, saying we should at least maintain the number of seats.

To specifically focus on some of the major things that are happening in the north where no consultation has taken place, when they did not ask northerners how they felt about these issues, one has to simply look at the issue of the downloading that's taking place right now as a perfectly good example.

The fact is that across northern Ontario the downloading, the dumping of responsibilities, is going to cost northerners and northern municipalities an extraordinary amount of money. It's clearly recognized by everyone, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, that there's at least a $1-billion shortfall.

In Thunder Bay, for example, my home town, it's very clear that $15.2 million of extra services will be thrown on the budget for Thunder Bay, which will increase property taxes by 20%. There was no consultation about this. There was no opportunity for northerners to basically talk to the government about this transfer of responsibilities. Certainly in Marathon and Schreiber, there's an extraordinary letter that the reeve of Schreiber, Bob Krause, wrote to the Minister of Northern Development explaining in great detail just what the downloading was going to mean to the town of Schreiber.

One is left with the thought: Is this government's attitude, "May the fittest survive. The communities that just simply have the greatest resources can survive, and if a community can't survive, too bad"? That's the attitude that seems to be coming forward as a result of this government. In this document, A Voice for the North, it said there would be consultation; it hasn't happened.

We look at the whole Health Services Restructuring Commission. The fact is that this is something that was thrown at the province and certainly thrown at northerners. Thunder Bay was the first stop they came to. Did they consult northerners about this? They made the decision and then they went through a process of consultation. The fact is three hospitals are closing in Thunder Bay because of the decisions of this commission. The fact is that jobs are being lost in hospitals. The fact is that the government is taking money out of the hospital system while it's restructuring, literally putting the cart before the horse.

It's not a question of restructuring being something that shouldn't be happening; it's a question of restructuring being done in a way that it can actually work. There was no consultation. A Voice for the North promised that. The fact is that there is less money going into the system in northern Ontario. They're taking it out of the hospitals. All the reinvestment announcements do not match what is being taken out of the hospitals, and this is a disgrace.

You look at the whole question of unemployment in northern Ontario. Youth unemployment is at 22% in northern Ontario, so the Minister of Northern Development announces the job programs for the north. There have been some very good job programs brought forward by previous governments, one of them being the Nortop program, where the government subsidizes a certain amount of the salary for employers to hire people across the north.

Since this government has come into place it's reduced the incentive down to such a point now that one has to be very concerned that indeed employers will be able to take advantage of this program and hire people, let alone the fact that they've simply got less money in the system for it.

Youth unemployment is an extraordinary example of how this government is not taking action to basically do what it said it would do, which is create jobs. Certainly again no consultation in terms of how the job programs are going to work in northern Ontario. They keep saying, "We know what's best," yet they won't listen to us.

One has to ask, did this government consult with northerners, let alone anybody in the province, about the closing of the family support plan regional offices all across the province, eight locations? We know what's happened since then. It's been a disaster. It's been a disgrace. The Attorney General does not want to admit it, but he truly has to. The fact is the system is not working. People, mothers, women and children, custodial parents and children are being deprived of what they have a right to because the system failed. No consultation on the family support plan.

No consultation on the closing of the environmental testing lab in Thunder Bay. This is about the air and water quality in our systems in northern Ontario. Now it's been privatized. Now we know in fact it's going to cost more to provide the service.

The list goes on and on. The fact is that the people of northern Ontario are very angry and very disappointed, to put it politely -- "angry" is more the word -- about a government that puts across the impression as best it can that indeed it is consulting on all these issues.

Bill 104, the huge school boards that will be left, extraordinary, impossible school boards: They've got to be changed. The fact is, the people in the north are very angry and very upset.

On Monday, April 28, Thunder Bay will be holding a day of action, as others have been held across the province. People from all across the city will be coming out and expressing their disdain and their anger at this government for doing what it's doing. They will be expressing a very strong point of view. Even the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce, as much as I will admit they in essence support some of the things the government is doing, are upset because the government won't consult with them. They've had a regular meeting with the government. The government will not meet with the associated chambers of commerce. Something's wrong.

I proudly stand here and support my colleague's resolution and I'm glad to see that the whole House will be supporting it as well.

Mr Martin: It gives me great pleasure this morning to rise and with the couple of minutes that I have put on the record a couple of thoughts re this very important issue, the issue of how this government does or doesn't support the development of the economy and life in general in northern Ontario.

I was happy to see in the last week or two that the government finally discovered it has within its ranks somebody with some roots in northern Ontario. He came here this morning, Mr Spina, who rightfully says he was born and raised in Sault Ste Marie, to put some thoughts on the record and to say that he was going to support this resolution because he believes the north is an important piece of this province and wants to make sure it stays viable and alive and a good place for all of us who have chosen to live and work there to continue to do so.

I hope, as he becomes more versed in the issues that are out there, as he takes time to sit down and talk with people like myself and the member for Cochrane North and others of us from the north around what we see as the essential issues of the north, he will bring the messages that we share with him back to his government so that they might change the direction and the tack they've taken so far.

However, I was disappointed this morning to not hear from Mr Spina some explanation of some of the comments he made early on in his political career when he suggested that, for example, Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie was part of a buggy-whip industry and how that plays into the economic development and the plan they have for the north.

Interjection.

Mr Martin: Perhaps it wasn't you, Joe, but it was somebody in your ranks who made that comment and I think you were in support of that by some of the comments you made.

I would hope that doesn't reflect an attitude, because those of us who are watching sense that it does. The economy that is coming at us in Ontario is plugged into this new global reality, and the north, with all of its intricacies and challenges, is not going to fit nicely into that. So we hope that with the appointment of the new parliamentary assistant we will have a more responsive ear in the government of this House.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): It's a pleasure to rise this morning and speak on this resolution from the member for Kenora. I was one of those who had the opportunity to travel the north, and we put A Voice for the North together. I listened to the comments from the member for Kenora with regard to our arriving at Red Lake. I'm not so sure -- he had mentioned about some fishing trip, but I certainly didn't see one. Maybe he was on a fishing trip, but I wasn't. I was on an expedition to find out what's going on in the north.

We visited the hospital there, we visited the people in tourism, and we visited many people with regard to the municipal planning boards in the north, municipal officials, mining operators, social services workers, natural resources.

We met many interest groups in the north that were concerned with regard to the administration that was taking place there. The business people in the north are concerned about how the NDP administration was operating. They looked at the heritage fund and where the money went out of that heritage fund. It was this government that put the money back into that heritage fund, some $60 million. Not only that, but there's some $17 million already committed to the north through projects in the north. You must know that we've spent about $104 million on the roads in the north, and that will probably be increased.

I'm glad the resolution was brought by the member for Kenora to talk about the north, because it gives us the opportunity to tell the people in the north what we have done. Many projects are under way and will be expanded on.

The known fact is that this government is committed to health care in the north. The envelope is $17.4 billion and that's increased now by some $300 million. So we had the opportunity to talk to the doctors; we had the opportunity to talk to the people in the Plummer hospital. We were in Goulais Lake, talking to the people there. We were in Elliot Lake. We were right across the north, talking to people with regard to the land claims that were being negotiated there.

Yes, we knew what we were talking about when we talked about A Voice for the North, because it was the people there that we got the input from, not people in the south. We were listening to the people in the north, and I know the member for Kenora knows that.

To say today, as this resolution is saying, that we are not doing things in the north, that's not true. We like to support a resolution to let you people know that we are doing many things in the north and the parliamentary assistant is certainly here to expand on that. I'm sure the parliamentary assistant will take up and be available to the people of the north, which is what we need.

With regard to the resolution today, I want to support it and make sure that the people of northern Ontario are still getting the services they so deserve.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kenora has two minutes.

Mr Miclash: Let me start off by saying that I would like to congratulate the new PA to the Minister of Northern development, the member for Brampton North. I certainly look forward to working with him. I'm actually very pleased that he and his colleagues have decided to support this resolution here today. It says to me that they know we are not happy in the north. I must say that I'm hoping they don't get fired for this, but again, I appreciate their support.

I'd also like to thank the other members for expressing their concerns. We had the member for Algoma, who talked about hospital closings in his riding, the shutting down of many ministry offices throughout northern Ontario, the job loss. We had the member for Timiskaming talking about the reduction of the voice in the north in terms of the reducing of members in the north from the present 15 to 10 members. There is a true concern by some of my northern colleagues regarding job loss. The member for Cochrane North talked about the job loss which is having a devastating effect in his riding.

The member for Bruce suggested that local solutions were being sought. I hope she's going to be in Fort Frances from May 1 to 3, during the NOMA convention, because if she speaks to any of the municipal leaders, any of the councillors, she will find that they're feeling very left out of the process. The member for Port Arthur suggested that this government wasn't listening, that we're talking about youth unemployment in northern Ontario of 22%. Finally, the member for Simcoe East talked about his trip to Red Lake.

All you have to do is take a look at the press, who suggested that the entire group would not even speak to the press when they visited to Red Lake; they would not speak to the media.

I would like to thank the members for their support. I look forward to their support during the vote as well.

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today to present my private member's resolution:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should consider

section 335(

f) of Bill 104, by ensuring that the proposed Education Improvement Commission review the entitlements and rights of non-instructional school employees if their positions are to be outsourced and that these non-instructional school employees are consulted and entitled to compete or bid on any position being considered for outsourcing as part of

section 335(

f) of Bill 104.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): According to standing order 96(c)(ii), the member has 10 minutes.

Mr O'Toole: I'm pleased to rise to present my position on this petition which I have just read into the record. I have participated in the many public hearings recently on Bill 104 around the province. The all-party standing committee on social development heard from over 300 presenters across the province. We listened, and I believe we responded. Yesterday, April 23, Bill 104 received third and final reading. I am pleased that our minister has responded with a fair and reasonable number of amendments.

Bill 104 is all about fewer boards, fewer trustees, fewer administrators and more accountability, more money for the teacher and student in the classroom, and more parent involvement. I might add that we adopted 18 amendments in committee, including one of the third party's. This amendment itself will give students a real voice in their education.

For me, the original provisions of

section 335 of Bill 104 have been very seriously modified already. I don't wish to take full credit for the present amendment which directs the Education Improvement Commission to examine, where appropriate, the option of outsourcing. I want to stress the importance of "where appropriate." This is not about me and my resolution; it is about listening to my constituents. My resolution is all about responding to my constituents. This is about allowing non-instructional employees to be heard and to be consulted.

It is clear to me that the EIC, the Education Improvement Commission, will no longer promote outsourcing. This indeed is a victory. It proves our government listens. My constituents told me that they were concerned with the threat of losing their jobs. On several occasions my constituents demonstrated at my office. We met and they asked to be allowed to be given the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

My resolution is dedicated to Miss Sue Bradley, Miss Elizabeth Jones, Mr Gino Turallo, Miss Brenda Stevens, Mr and Mrs Newell, Mrs Diane Carey, Mr and Mrs Forrest, Miss Margo Gadstone, Mrs Vanleuwen and many other constituents who impressed me with their sincerity and dedication and the contribution they make to our school communities. I know and respect many of these constituents. They are honest, hardworking, taxpaying Ontarians. I don't want these people to lose their jobs. I don't want these people to become victims of school boards and their cost-cutting initiatives.

We are talking about educational assistants, school secretaries, school custodians and others, people to whom we entrust the lives of our children. We must have safe, clean, secure schools for our children. These people argue they are a part of the educational team in our children's schools. I agree. Some of my constituents in fact have said that the secretaries run the schools.

At the same time, everyone recognizes that we must allow administration the tools to examine every opportunity to spend taxpayers' money wisely. It is common knowledge today that some services in some of our schools are already outsourced or contracted. Seasonal work, like snow removal and grass cutting, and major maintenance, like roof repairs and other services, are more efficiently handled by specialists and, in some cases, local small business people. No one can argue with allowing our district school administration, where appropriate, to examine alternative service delivery proposals -- no one, unless they support the existence of waste and duplication.

Remember that we must focus all our scarce resources in the classroom. I'm asking all members to support this resolution, not only to send a strong signal to the EIC and our new district board, but also to show their individual support for the non-instructional people in our schools.

My resolution is not perfect and I recognize that. However, some opposition members have spoken to me and understand that I am really trying to put pressure on the EIC and the new district board to consult with their workforce. These are the people on the front line. These are people who know where the efficiencies are. Ask them; they will help us cut the cost, eliminate waste and duplication.

Just imagine if all three parties and members here today support this resolution. It is a clear message of support for our educational work team. I look forward to comments from other members.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I must admit I sat here in a bit of amazement listening to this member. If it wasn't for Bill 104 being passed in this House less than 24 hours ago, you could have some sympathy for what he's saying. I guess the real question I have is, if he feels so strongly about it, why wasn't it included in the bill to start off with?

Let me just say at the outset that we are against outsourcing. We don't believe in outsourcing. We don't think it should gave been in the bill. Now to come in here, the day after Bill 104 has been passed by this House, when it was objected to by over 600 individuals and organizations that made representations to the committee etc, is a little bit like trying to have it both ways. You simply can't do that.

If the member felt that strongly about it, then he should have been able to at least get the endorsement of his own government members to this notion. When he says that he's listening to the people in his constituency, what about the government listening to the people of Ontario? It's my understanding that just about every group and individual that came to speak to the committee during its five weeks of hearings was dead set against Bill 104. So if we want to talk about listening, then let's truly listen not only to the people in your own constituency but to the people throughout the province on this education bill.

It is never appropriate to outsource. That's certainly what the unions that are involved with school activities are saying. It is just as important that our students not only have the best classroom education that's available for them but also the best resources, and those resources have a lot to do with the caretakers, with the secretaries and with all the other non-instructional people involved in our school system. The moment we start talking about outsourcing, it will lead to only one result, and that will be a lowering of the standards that people have come to expect from our school system.

I simply say to the member opposite that he has got it wrong. He should have done something about this before. He should have had the courage of his convictions yesterday and stood up and voted against Bill 104. He cannot now, the day afterwards, change his mind on the matter.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The cat is out of the bag, there's no two ways about it. We know now, and the member for Durham East confirms, that Bill 104 is all about an attack on the quality of education across this province in every community, in every school, in every elementary school and every high school across the board. This government is talking about a direct attack and is implementing a direct attack on quality public education. For this government to dare talk about the cutbacks that it is implementing currently here and now, right now, is absurd.

We know that Ontario ranks 46th in per pupil spending among all the state and provincial jurisdictions throughout North America. Heck, New Jersey, that right-wing island of Republicanism often cited by Mr Harris as a model of right-wing rectitude, spends 82% more per student on education than Ontario.

This government is talking clearly, and more clearly than ever now, about privatization, about selling off public institutions so they can be assumed by for-profit and, as often as not, American-based, big corporations so they can make profits at the expense of our health care and, quite frankly, at the expense of our education.

I tell you, Speaker, and I tell the member for Durham East, if he can call himself that, that we are not going to accept any proposition that would force hardworking people like the non-teaching staff, already working hard and working professionally for modest wages -- I tell you, modest wages. To force them to compete, to bid in a bidding war with low-wage private contractors, is absurd.

Our goal is to protect the rights of people who have worked in the educational system, partners across the board, be they teachers, educational assistants, secretarial and other support staff or, quite frankly, custodians, and that's what the member is talking about here and now. It is unacceptable from many perspectives. But I also say, from the point of view of the welfare of our children, that for fly-by-night contractors bidding yearly, lowest bidder takes all, to be permitted to bring their workers, low-wage earners, into our schools to interact with our children exposes our children to risk and it exposes the quality education that we should be striving for to even greater risk.

This motion is not just dumb, it's getting dumber. This motion is an absurd but concentrated attack on working people, on the people who have contributed to the quality of education in this province. It's part and parcel of this government's whole agenda to beat the hell out of workers in Ontario, to lower wages so that greater and greater wealth can be monopolized in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The rich friends of the Harris Tories are the only people who are going to be winners in this sad charade that we have been experiencing now for two years and hopefully for not too many more months longer.

We're not supporting this resolution. It's an out-and-out, blatant attack on our educational system. It's part and parcel of this government's agenda. It's all about, and confirms, the drive towards privatization of long-established public and quality institutions and it's part and parcel of their attack on quality education, wanting to turn us very much into the Mississippi or the Alabama of the north.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I'm pleased to support in principle the resolution put forward by the member for Durham East which supports the entitlements and rights of non-instructional school employees if their positions are to be outsourced under Bill 104.

As this Legislature knows, yesterday marked a historical day in Ontario. The Fewer School Boards Act was passed, allowing us to focus education dollars in the classroom instead of the boardroom. Concentrating our efforts on the classroom is the best way to achieve this.

This resolution supports the amendments to Bill 104 that will give the Education Improvement Commission the ability to look at different ways of delivering services within schools and to treat all employees of school boards with respect and fairness. As a result of the amendments, it is clear that the employees of the existing school boards become employees of the new district school boards. Current collective agreements and employment contracts will be assumed by the new boards.

With respect to the issue of outsourcing non-instructional services, the act does not require or mandate outsourcing of non-instructional services. Through an amendment, we have made it clear that the Education Improvement Commission's mandate would be to study how to facilitate outsourcing, and the most important

part is "where appropriate." This amendment was made to underline that we want the commission to take a balanced, fair and comprehensive approach to this issue.

The main points of the resolution before us today are surely points that the commission would want to consider as it carries out that study and develops recommendations. The existing entitlements and rights of non-instructional employees are clearly factors that the commission would need to look at. Consultation with employees and giving the affected employees an opportunity to bid for work if outsourcing should occur are all issues that would be completely appropriate for the commission to view as part of its work.

The Fewer School Boards Act is part of a wider program of education reform aimed at increasing quality and raising standards. Treating all who work in education with fairness is a critical part of achieving a successful transition. I believe the resolution put forward by the member for Durham East supports that goal, so I'm pleased to say that I will support it as well.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I'm afraid we are going to disappoint the member for Durham East by indicating that we will not be supporting his resolution today, but I think it's important for me to say why we will not be supporting it, and there are two reasons. The first reason is that, as a result of yesterday, the resolution is simply no longer relevant. I want to point out that Bill 104 became law -- in fact it was proclaimed to be law this morning -- and therefore amendments to the bill are no longer possible.

The member for Durham East will be very well aware that his own government made the process of amending this law very, very difficult through two closure motions. The first closure motion was the time allocation motion that said that in standing committee we could only have four hours to reflect on all the concerns that had been presented to us in the standing committee's public hearings.

Without any question at all, there were a huge number of concerns expressed about this one clause in Bill 104 in which it says that the new education information commission -- I keep calling it the education information commission, because I think it is to put forward the government's agenda, but it's called the Education Improvement Commission -- was to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to...facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards."

It was correctly pointed out during the standing committee hearings that that left the education commission no leeway to say, "It's not appropriate to outsource non-instructional services in a school setting." They were directed to tell school boards how to do it.

That concern was repeated over and over again, and I know the member for Durham East is well aware of that and that he presents this resolution in response to those concerns. I want to make it clear that I respect that.

Of course, our ability to discuss that and to make amendments, to look at amendments other than the one that the government proposed, was cut off, because at the end of those few hours we had to consider all amendments to have been read. We could have no discussion. We couldn't discuss why the resolution that might have been proposed by the member for Durham East, that had been proposed at that point in time by the member for Durham East, would have been preferable to the amendment the government presented, because all discussion was closed off.

We never got a chance even to discuss this issue of outsourcing and how to make it less of a very real concern for people in the educational community and for parents.

I have to respect the tenacity of the member for Durham East in bringing his resolution forward today, even though Bill 104 became law yesterday. He obviously felt a conviction and a commitment to want to express his concerns, even against his own government's actions. But I think it was equally clear, as the government proposed its own amendment to this clause, that they were not prepared to consider the proposals of the member for Durham East, which were already a matter of record.

The government could well have brought forward the amendments proposed by the member for Durham East in the committee of the whole, had the government not cut off our opportunity to consider further amendments in committee of the whole. You'll recall, Mr Speaker, that there was a second closure motion brought in on Bill 104 so that we never got a chance to go into committee of the whole to even consider, at that point in time, this proposed amendment from the member for Durham East.

It is obvious that his own government, fully aware of the concerns he was bringing to this, fully aware of the proposal he was making, said: "No, we are not prepared to amend this bill to allow consultation with employees. We are not prepared to amend the bill to allow employees to bid on positions which might be outsourced." I respect the member for Durham East for continuing to bring this forward and I regret very much that the government did not provide the member for Durham East, or any other members of this assembly, an opportunity to debate and fully consider the concerns that have been presented on this issue, as on all parts of Bill 104.

The member for Durham East has pointed out that the government did make an amendment to this clause. I want to duly note that. They added the words "where appropriate" to the clause so that the commission is no longer directed, without any leeway at all, to tell boards how to outsource. But I would suggest very strongly that this is not a modification which goes nearly far enough. As the member for Kingston and The Islands has said, when it comes to non-instructional services, services provided to support students in an educational setting, it should never be considered appropriate to outsource those services.

That's the second reason we would not have been supporting this resolution even had Bill 104 not been proclaimed law as of this time. We would not be supporting it because, although it softens -- I acknowledge that it softens -- the impact of outsourcing somewhat, because it provides for consultation and it does allow for the bidding, it still carries an endorsement of outsourcing and we cannot in any way endorse outsourcing.

We heard over and over again the concerns at committee about outsourcing non-instructional services in an educational setting. We particularly heard from parents. Obviously, we heard from members of unions, from school board employees, who understand the value of their work and who wanted us to understand that value, but we also heard from parents.

We heard from parents who came to us and said: "If you start looking at outsourcing any of the non-instructional support services in our schools, whether it is our janitorial service, whether it's our secretarial service, whether it's the libraries or the guidance services, whether it is the psychological assessment services, this presents a danger to our children."

Parents were worried about the safety of students in the school if they have strangers coming into the school. They said: "We need continuity of personnel in the school. We need people who know our children and know our children's needs. We believe that every person in the school is an integral part of the school community. We don't want to be in a situation where we end up with dial-a-cleaner and somebody comes in to do the cleaning that day, or where we need some extra secretarial help so we go to the temporary secretarial pool but the people coming in don't even know the names of our kids, let alone how to reach the family if there's a problem."

We heard from people who are providing psychological assessment support. I happen to have some background in that area and I know for a fact that unless the person doing the assessment of that student knows the educational context for that student's learning, they cannot properly assess that student. This is dangerous for students.

Outsourcing of non-instructional support services should never be seen to be appropriate. An attempt to soften the blow is not sufficient if it carries the endorsement of outsourcing.

I know another of my colleagues is anxious to speak on this and I'm sure he will refer to what he has heard from people in his community. I want to make it very clear that we have heard from virtually all members of the educational community, who have said they cannot and do not want to see this resolution supported. We had responses from teachers' federations, who speak to the value of the non-instructional support services in the school and who do not want to see any resolution passed which implies endorsement of outsourcing. We had all the submissions that were made at committee.

We had repeated submissions from members of unions, as I say, who understand the value of the work that they do, not just in their own job description areas but the contribution they make to the school as a whole.

The last point I would like to make is that we also heard at committee from two boards, one of them the Simcoe county board, who have tried outsourcing and who have cancelled it because they found, "When [in this case] the maintenance and custodial services were contracted out and subsequently brought back in-house, a comparative study demonstrated that our members could provide higher-quality service in a more efficient manner." It is good for kids to keep the non-instructional support services in the school with full-time school personnel.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. I would open my remarks by suggesting to the House that our caucus, the NDP caucus, does not agree with the Liberal idea that somehow this resolution softens the impact of Bill 104 on workers in the education system, particularly the non-instructional school employees. In fact, if anything, this resolution is adding salt to the wound, because within this resolution is clearly the acceptance that, first, privatization will take place and, second, successor rights are gone.

It's interesting that the Minister of Education has spent the last couple of days trying to distance himself from the idea that this government would consider removing successor rights or overriding job protection clauses in collective agreements that are now in place with CUPE.

But the fact is that this resolution speaks clearly to the fact that those successor rights are gone. If they were still in place, you wouldn't have any question of who gets those jobs or what are they paid or what their benefit levels are or what their job security rights are because that's what's contained in the collective agreement. Successor rights, which of course this government has taken away from Ontario public sector workers -- everyone else gets to keep them, but they've stripped their own employees of those rights.

We know what that game is. It's all about privatizing, hiving off those services where profit can be made and selling them to their friends so they can make money off of public services: direct taxation, if you will, from those who are paying taxes for services into the pockets of those who want to make a profit.

In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with making a profit. What we find obscene is that that profit will be generated from the provision of services to the public that are now provided by the public so that the only priority is that the services the people need, they're getting.

This resolution says that successor rights for CUPE workers in schools, and I would suggest by extension other CUPE public sector workers providing services at the municipal level, are gone -- gone because the contract is gone. As soon as the job is privatized, no more contract, no more job security, no more vacation entitlements, no more decent pay, no more decent benefits. All gone, stripped away, decades of rights that workers fought for and deserve. Gone by the stroke of a pen.

But it goes further than that. It says, and this is what we find so insulting, that these workers, these non-instructional school employees -- and it's nice that the member now wants to talk about the fact that they're team members. He should slide over, he's not that far away, and talk to the Minister of Education about the fact that the custodial people, the janitor services, the maintenance services, the transportation services, the clerical services, all those services are as important to the classroom as the teacher standing at the front of the room.

For him to stand there today and talk about teamwork, while his Minister of Education attacks the ability of school boards to provide those other services, is further insulting not just the people affected here but insulting the intelligence of the public that somehow they aren't going to understand that all these other services are just as important as what's provided in the front of the room by that all-important teacher.

He goes on to say about those very workers, those non-instructional school employees, that they get to be "consulted." We know what consultation means to this government. Usually it happens after the fact. Go talk to the firefighters. Go talk to police. Go talk to nurses. Go talk to all those people who have already felt the heavy end of the boot of this government when it comes to consultation.

In fact, the only time we can ever get them to go out in public and review what they've already decided to do, to allow the public some minor input of their opinion, is after we've forced them, by way of pressure in this House, to get out into the public. Certainly the member for Nepean, who is gesturing wildly over there -- I'm not sure what all that means -- would know because of the experience he had with the Employment Standards Act, when you stripped workers of their rights in that bill, what we had to do to force this government to go out publicly. They talk about consultation. You've been in government long enough that people know what consultation means to you.

Those workers whose jobs are contracted out, here's the scenario: Bill 104 sets the framework for this government to take control in a way that's never been seen in the history of the province of what happens in our schools. They've already stripped the equivalent of $1 billion out of our school system, and by the way, that makes it better: "If $1 billion taken out makes it a better system, imagine what another $1 billion would do to make it a better system." That's the logic. Bill 104 is going to provide this government with the ability to do what the Minister of Education is already on the record as saying he wants to do, and that is: "Take another $1 billion out of our education system."

For all the government's talk about the fact that there's all this excess fat and that all this is not affecting the classroom, I would suggest to anyone listening today to talk to the teachers. Talk to the teachers. Don't buy into the argument that they're just a special interest group and deserve to be ignored. You know that when you go and consult and meet with those teachers, what they have to say about your kids matters to you.

It's a very rare occasion when a parent does not respect what a teacher is saying about their child's development in class. Talk to that very teacher and ask them whether or not the classroom has been affected already. Then ask that teacher what's going to happen if you take another $1 billion out of the education system; or talk to the trustees, because they are honourable elected people and, just like the members of the government, deserve to be recognized, and all the members here in the opposition.

Everybody is honourable except when you decide to put that label "special interest" on someone's forehead as you've done with school board trustees. They're just as honourable, members of the government, as you or anyone else in elected office and they deserve to be respected.

I would say to parents, talk to the teachers, talk to the trustees, talk to people who work in the system, talk to the people who clean the classroom, talk to the people who drive the buses, talk to the people who are in the system. Yes, listen to what the minister says. It's not like that's not an important point of view. He is the Minister of Education. But don't end your search for the truth there. Talk to other people, your neighbours, relatives. It's an important part of our society; it's an important part of our economy. Talk to the students. Ask them what's happening in their classrooms; ask them what they think about the idea that there be less and less money available.

That's what Bill 104 is meant to do. They're going to find this $1 billion by privatizing as much of the non-instructional school work as they can. In doing that, they're going to take away a decent-paying job from ordinary citizens of this province who are just trying to provide for their families. That's what you've done in every case where you've privatized, and we know there's a big movement coming. You're going to privatize those jobs.

You're going to strip away the rights those workers are entitled to in terms of job protection, health and safety protection, vacation entitlement, decent pay -- all the things that people are entitled to. How about a decent dental plan for their kids? All those things matter. You've got them. Every one of the members across the way has those kinds of benefits. Why isn't that good enough for people working in the school system? Why? Because you've got to find the $5 billion to pay for your tax cut. That's what it's all about.

You seem to think people won't understand that or they don't get it or that's beyond them. Guess again. That's why all those people came out to the hearings on Bill 104. That's why there are no teachers, no school trustees, nobody involved in the education system who buys your phoney argument that cutting $1 billion made the system better and, "When we cut the second billion it's going to be great."

There's the scenario; that sets the stage. What does this resolution do? This resolution says to those workers I've spoken of today, who have had their jobs privatized and their rights stripped away, "You can compete or bid on that job." Given the number of people you've put out of work, given the number of decent-paying jobs you've already eliminated, you've got the perfect scenario with this resolution. What's that scenario? Have as many unemployed people as you can, underemployed, making as little as possible, and then when you throw out the crumbs of privatized jobs, have them all fight each other for those jobs.

How will they do it? Who will work for the lowest? Who will work for the fewest benefits? The workers compete and undercut each other. That's what this says: "Your job's been privatized. You've got no collective agreement. Under this resolution you'd have the right to fight somebody who's been underemployed or unemployed for months or years to see who gets that job." What does that scenario replace? It replaces decent-paying jobs, something that you don't support because it gets in the way of your pals making the maximum amount of profit. It's that scenario that we find so absolutely reprehensible, and that's why we will not support this insulting resolution.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I am very pleased to rise to support this resolution of the member for Durham East. Certainly both of us work together quite commonly on issues with the Northumberland and Clarington Board of Education. I'd like also to point out the importance of Bill 104 that just passed third reading last night, because now we'll have some regard for local ratepayers and taxpayers that has not been going on in the past. I'd like to compliment a trustee in my riding, Marg Connor, who has stood up to the board and its undemocratic and very authoritarian approach to some of the local board decisions and activities.

What this resolution that is being put forward by the member for Durham East seeks to address is really quite simple: It is not public sector versus private sector, it is competition versus monopoly. In a monopoly there is little incentive to do better, to please the customer. This has led to inefficiencies in many instances, to added costs, to mediocre performance and to waste. By introducing some competition into the mix there is an incentive to do better, and to do better for less. There's plenty of evidence that a system of public-private sector competition works, and it works very well indeed.

Interjection: Where?

Mr Galt: I'll tell you. In their landmark book, Reinventing Government, by Osborne and Gaebler, the authors recount the story of Phoenix, Arizona. Some time ago, in the throes of a tax revolt -- sound familiar? we're having it all across Ontario -- Phoenix decided to contract out their garbage collection services. Predictably, the union protested, and protested vehemently. Despite that, the city council met and eventually decided to go ahead, but they allowed the existing waste collection department to also bid on the job.

Public works divided the city into some seven districts and began bidding them out one at a time. Three times the waste collection department submitted bids and three times they lost, but the losses forced the department to rethink the way they were doing business. They asked their drivers to redesign their routes. They asked them to redesign their work schedules. They created quality circles and a labour-management productivity committee. They also developed a new cost-accounting system to track precisely how much their services cost. Finally, they installed a suggestion program that gave employees 10% of the savings generated. In short, they completely redesigned their management strategy.

Gradually the department's costs came down, and when the next contract came up, they won. Morale soared. It was an amazing transformation in this city and in this department, and when they finally whipped the private sector people, the public employees knew they had done it because they indeed were the best. What's more, within a few years the city department had won back all of the contracts they had lost.

Since then, Phoenix has used competition not only in garbage collection but in landfill operations, custodial services, street repair, printing and security. The city auditor has estimated savings of $20 million over the first 10 years of this project, but since competition has forced all bid levels down, this is but a fraction of their real savings. That's what competition did for Phoenix, and it can work here too.

It's also my understanding, closer to home, that the Ottawa-Carleton French board of education, through reduction of their administration and operating expenses and through contracting out, really using competition in the non-teaching services, cut a deficit in 1992 of some $8.5 million. Now they're breaking even and actually having a surplus and at the same time putting more teachers into the classroom and buying more computers for the students.

I wholeheartedly support this resolution being put forth by the member for Durham East. While it's true that many would prefer to maintain their comfortable monopoly and sit in their comfortable pew, competition does drive to embrace innovation and strive for excellence. It holds the key that will unlock the bureaucratic gridlock that hamstrings so many public agencies, but most of all, it will help us to ensure that taxpayers receive the best value for the money they pay and work so hard to earn. For these reasons, I enthusiastically support the resolution put forth by the member for Durham East.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm pleased to rise today in support of the member for Durham East's resolution.

I think it's important at this time to focus on what we're dealing with: non-instructional school employees. The resolution speaks: If their positions are to be outsourced, these non-instructional school employees will be consulted and entitled to compete or bid on any position being considered for outsourcing as part of clause 335(3)(f), of Bill 104.

Clause 335(3)(

f) of Bill 104 clearly states that the Education Improvement Commission is to "consider, conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to...facilitate," where appropriate, "the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards." The Education Improvement Commission is to make recommendations to the Minister of Education.

The operative word of Bill 104 is "outsourcing." We truly have to understand what that term means, because obviously the opposition doesn't. What it means is using a third party to provide the service rather than the district school boards. What we're dealing with here is outsourcing where it's appropriate, and "where it's appropriate" should involve considerations such as safety, cost consideration, efficiency, accountability and the quality of the education.

The member from Thunder Bay indicated that, from my riding, the Simcoe Board of Education dealt with janitorial services in terms of outsourcing, but one of the things they didn't do was consider whether it was appropriate before they went out and did it. Certainly in the hearings that I was involved in, they gave us the input of what they did and in fact they changed their decision and went back to using the school board employees, after they made due consideration of the factors they should have looked at before they even did that. I think it's important when you look at Bill 104, that the changes that have been made to outsourcing -- the mandate is to do it where it's appropriate.

I'll return now to the resolution. It's important to note that if outsourcing occurs, non-instructional school employees are to be consulted and entitled to compete. That's going to occur after all the legal rights which they would be entitled to, collective agreements if applicable, would have been considered by the minister and by the Education Improvement Commission. Nothing is out of line with respect to the legal rights we're looking at here.

I support the resolution because it gives capable people an opportunity to continue to serve the public if they so wish. It also promotes business opportunity and accountability to taxpayers, because obviously the opposition isn't involved in accountability to the taxpayer. They would prefer a system where you basically go out blindly and leave the system as is, don't make changes that the public is crying out to be made. This is a government that believes it should be making change where it's necessary, versus the status quo which is supported by the opposition parties.

I think under Bill 104 we're promoting accountability to taxpayers. I believe taxpayers have a right to ensure, through us, that they get the best service possible. When we talk about the resolution of the member for Durham East, I think it's very clear that the resolution is relevant, and it's very relevant to the people who could be affected, the non-instructional school employees. It's also relevant when we talk about outsourcing, because for those people who believe change is necessary to the education system and for those who believe the quality of education in the classroom is where we should be putting our funding, obviously outsourcing is relevant.

I'm in support of this resolution that's been put forth by the member for Durham East because it's relevant. It also provides the protections and the fairness that we're looking for when we're dealing with Bill 104, because the mandate that's been given to the Education Improvement Commission is to report to the minister after consulting the public. The mandate is very clear. The opposition parties know what the mandate is; the language is very clear and the resolution of Mr O'Toole is very clear also. When you look at this from a very commonsense approach, it's a fair resolution and I support it.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I congratulate the member for Durham East for taking this initiative to take an independent position on behalf of his constituents, the workers; not the political agenda of certain union leaders. Rather he has forcefully and very articulately represented the views of his constituents.

These changes in terms of restructuring, to show the non-partisan nature of the member for Durham East, are much of what the federal Liberal government has done in Ottawa. They have opened up an office, the regional economic diversification office for Ottawa-Carleton, to help the public servants that the federal Liberal government, some 45,000 federal public servants that the Chrétien government is letting go. This office will help those folks potentially bid and take over the contracts that they've been letting go.

I'm pleased to note the member for Durham East is using that fine example that the federal Chrétien government is doing in Ottawa with the good number of displacements that we've regrettably seen in that.

This alternative service delivery obviously is the key, because the public is very clear. The public told the member for Durham East, as they told me, that they want the spending made in the classroom, the priority and money to go into the classroom, and I commend the member for Durham East.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too am pleased to partake in this debate. As we've heard from previous speakers, we know that outsourcing is certainly going to take away from the community atmosphere, the continuity in our schools. As a former educator, I certainly knew how important that was. We've heard from parents, we've heard from administrators, we've heard from educators, and they too have told us about the great danger in terms of outsourcing. Again I would, as a former educator, like to get those views relating to non-instructional support services on the record.

I truly am concerned that we will take the community out of the school and forget about the people who should be at the forefront, the kids that we service.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In addition to the people from Cornwall who have been speaking to John Cleary, the member for Cornwall, about these matters, I have received representations from people in our community. I'm very familiar with the education system and how important it is that you have an educational team; not that you segregate the people, not that you demean and downgrade some positions at the expense of others.

If you talk to the teachers who are in the classroom, if you talk to the administrators, such as principals and vice-principals, they will all tell you that if you don't have that educational team, if you don't have people who are familiar with education, if you don't have people who have some degree of experience, then you simply don't have a coordinated school system.

This government is setting out, once again, to downgrade and degrade the position of people such as caretakers, cleaners, clerks, educational assistants, library technicians, maintenance personnel, secretaries, special education support technicians, youth care workers, child care workers, counsellors, technicians, groundskeepers, a number of people who play a very significant role, who have been loyal to boards of education and loyal to the students that they ultimately serve within a system.

The member for Fort William, the Liberal education critic, has outlined many of the significant roles that they play over and above those which would be found in their job descriptions. For this government now to be striking fright into the hearts of these people, many of whom are long-term employees, threatening that out there they're going to end up with severe reductions in their wages or salaries, the removal of some of their collective agreement winnings in terms of the services that are provided, I believe is reprehensible on the part of this government. I know they continue to play this role.

If you ask the students, if you ask those who are not in the categories found in this particular matter today, they would all say this government should abandon its efforts to outsource and to privatize people who have been dedicated educational employees over the years. This is simply an unnecessary assault on vulnerable people in our society.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East has two minutes.

Mr O'Toole: It's my pleasure to thank those who participated in my resolution today. The member for St Catharines-Brock, who I might add is the new parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, I thank you for your comments; also the member for Northumberland, a good friend -- we do work together very hard -- and of course the member for Simcoe Centre, who is a very well respected labour specialist and has been involved in much of the legislation this government has been dealing with.

From the opposition benches, I was flattered that the education critic, the member for Fort William, made comments that my resolution was no longer relevant. Yes, it's clear that the discussion and the input that I had clearly moved the minister and this government to make changes to clause 335(3)(

f) to take the hard language out of the original

section of the bill.

I go on to acknowledge the comments made by the members for Kenora, St Catharines, Welland-Thorold and Hamilton Centre. To the member for Hamilton Centre, the NDP government soon forgets the hard blow they gave the working people in our schools. The social contract took almost $1 billion out of education right off the backs of the lowest-paid workers in our educational system in Ontario.

My resolution is about giving people a chance to compete, to be consulted. It's about you showing your support for the non-instructional school employees: educational assistants, secretaries, custodians and others who are the lowest-paid employees in our schools. Each member should have the courage to stand up today and support this legislation and not the traditional party lines. This resolution is not about pro- or anti-union sentiments; it's about people being given a chance. My resolution is simple and humble, and I present it by the people and for the people. Have the courage to support it.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 71, standing in the name of Mr Miclash. Is it the wish of the House that this resolution carry? It is carried.

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 72, standing in the name of Mr O'Toole. Is it the wish of the House that this resolution carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

The Acting Speaker: Mr O'Toole has moved private member's notice of motion number 45. Those in favour will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Baird, John R.

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Smith, Bruce

Beaubien, Marcel

Hastings, John

Spina, Joseph

Carroll, Jack

Jordan, W. Leo

Tascona, Joseph N.

Chudleigh, Ted

Leadston, Gary L.

Tilson, David

Doyle, Ed

Marland, Margaret

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Ford, Douglas B.

McLean, Allan K.

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

Munro, Julia

Young, Terence H.

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bradley, James J.

Gravelle, Michael

Martin, Tony

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

McLeod, Lyn

Colle, Mike

Kwinter, Monte

Miclash, Frank

Cordiano, Joseph

Laughren, Floyd

Sergio, Mario

Duncan, Dwight

Marchese, Rosario

Wildman, Bud

Gerretsen, John

Martel, Shelley

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32; the nays are 17.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution carried.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you would allow me to make a special commendation to Clerk at the Table Todd Decker for calling his first recorded vote so flawlessly.

The Acting Speaker: I will indeed.

This session being completed, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I rise today on behalf of the members to recognize that April 24 is remembrance day for the Armenian genocide. It was 82 years ago, I think all members remember, that 1.5 million Armenians were brutally killed -- these were women and children, elderly -- in a deliberate act of genocide.

Today, April 24, is the day the Armenian community and indeed the whole world remember that genocide, and tonight in front of the Legislature at 10 o'clock young people from the Armenian community will be there. With us in the gallery today are Aline Derkevorkian, Arby Ghazarian and Anastasia Chrysoudakis, who will be with the young people tonight.

There is a continuing unfinished piece of this sad saga, and that is that to this day those who were responsible for the genocide have failed to acknowledge their responsibility or to apologize. For the Armenian community, indeed for all of us, that wound cannot begin to heal until the Turkish community accepts responsibility and apologizes.

Finally, the importance for all of us is that we cannot let

an act of genocide be forgotten. Hitler once said to many around him in planning his Holocaust, "Who today remembers the Armenian genocide?" In other words, if the world community had stood behind the Armenian community, perhaps Hitler would never have been able to do his dastardly deeds.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): There was an announcement made in Sudbury today by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines which all of us in this House and in the north appreciate very much. It was an announcement about health care and more money into the cancer strategy that's being put in place up there.

Even though that is good news, and God knows we need more money into health care in the north because of the savaging that's happened to that system over the last couple of years, again this government has left us less than fully and totally excited about this because this announcement is still full of holes and raises more questions than it answers. Two of those questions I will highlight very briefly here today.

One of them is the fact that there was absolutely no mention made in the announcement by anybody at the conference or attached to it about the wonderful work that is going on in Sault Ste Marie under the able guidance of Dr David Walde, who was the forefather of this kind of delivery of oncology care in the north as far back as 1974.

The second is the fact that this money is coming from the northern Ontario heritage fund, a fund that we thought was very limited in its scope and its terms of reference to community economic development. Now we find that it's going to be given to health care. For some of us that will be good news, but we need to know if that is going to be the case and if the guidelines have been changed now so that other health care operations can apply to the heritage fund and know they're going to get some money.

PERTH COUNTY ECONOMY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise in the House today to announce more good news for the riding of Perth. Thanks to the policies of this government and the initiative of the constituents of my riding, Perth county is prospering once again.

I make this statement based on the figures which were recently released for farm building construction in 1996. Last year, farmers in Perth county applied for building permits on renovations and new building construction worth a total of $24.4 million. This is indeed a sign that the farming and construction industries in Perth, and indeed all of Ontario, are booming.

This boost in the rural economy is due in large part to the retail sales tax rebate which was announced by the Minister of Finance in the 1996 budget. The initiative has assisted farmers by allowing for rebate of provincial sales tax on materials purchased to either help build or modernize a structure used exclusively for farm purposes. The recently announced continuation of this program through the new fiscal year will undoubtedly result in further expansion in farming in Perth. This is good news and deserves to be recognized.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture for their support for the farmers of Ontario and for living up to this government's promise to be responsive and accountable to the farmers of Ontario.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Yesterday in the Legislature the Minister of Culture did something quite shameful, something for which she should apologize. In response to a setup question from one of her colleagues about Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, the minister portrayed one presentation made at public hearings in Thunder Bay as indicative of the support this bill is receiving in northern Ontario.

Such a gross distortion of the facts cannot be tolerated. Of the 17 presenters to the all-party committee, 16 expressed grave concerns about this very flawed piece of legislation. The library communities in Thunder Bay, Ignace, Beardmore, Atikokan, Dryden, Red Rock and Geraldton told the committee that a loss of provincial transfers could spell the end of libraries in their communities, and all of them spoke on the need to maintain majority citizen participation on library boards.

Minister, we all understand that you would prefer to have found more support for this bill, a bill that downloads responsibility totally on to municipalities and removes all provincial responsibility for the operation of our treasured public library system. But please don't insult all the people who drove hundreds and hundreds of miles to express their concerns about this legislation, and do not renege on your commitment, stated at the beginning of the hearings, that you would accept amendments based on presentations to the committee.

If you want to retain any credibility as culture minister, you must not play games with Bill 109. Unless you wish to confirm that public hearings are simply a farce, apologize to our northern library boards, and please listen to their message.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The Fewer School Boards Act, Bill 104, may have passed, but the people's concerns and questions have not. Because I wanted to make sure the people of Cochrane North had a say on Bill 104 and because this government did not care about sending the committee to our area three weeks ago, I had public hearings in Kapuskasing over this highly controversial bill. This is what the parents, school workers, trustees and ordinary citizens had to say to this government:

First of all, slow down. As with other pieces of legislation, this government has rammed through Bill 104 without giving people the opportunity to fully understand the content and what it actually means for our education system.

Second, the size of the new boards is a great concern for very many. The amalgamation of the school boards will actually create in northern Ontario two boards that are each the size of France. Does this make sense to you? There is no doubt that larger boards with fewer trustees will mean vastly reduced community representation and involvement in local education.

A large number of people are very concerned about the fact that Bill 104 is silent on crucial details such as the new funding formula, collective agreements and a commitment from this government to maintain current education spending. When will you give us the details on these crucial issues?

Let me tell you this: The fight is not over. We will be there when you bring forward legislation to deal with collective agreements and a new funding formula. Bill 103 and Bill 104 may have passed, but people's fight for democracy is well and alive.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): All political parties make promises during election campaigns. One party at the federal level in 1993 promised "Jobs, jobs, jobs." However, unlike the present Liberal government in Ottawa, the Mike Harris government is keeping its promises. And unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, we're not Copp-ing out.

The Mike Harris government is doing what needs to be done --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. This is members' statements. Everyone deserves the same opportunity to put their member's statement, regardless of your position on whatever they're saying.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Yes, but he's provoking us.

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, that's not provocation.

I would ask the member for Etobicoke-Humber to continue.

Mr Ford: All political parties make promises during election campaigns. One party at the federal level in 1993 promised "Jobs, jobs, jobs." However, unlike the present Liberal government in Ottawa, the Mike Harris government is keeping its promises and, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, we are not Copp-ing out.

The Mike Harris government is doing what needs to be done in order to stimulate the economy and bring jobs and growth. Jobs are up because the economy is showing so many positive signs. Exports and housing are both booming and bringing about jobs.

What the opposition doesn't want to hear is that spending on health care in Ontario is up, even when the critics of the government, in their usual doom-and-gloom fashion, claim we are cutting health or somehow endangering patients. The truth is that the Harris government is keeping its promise to maintain health care, even as the federal government cuts $2.1 billion in transfer payments to Ontario. We are putting patients first and finding ways to change spending priorities so that Ontarians continue to enjoy state-of-the-art care.

The real Ontario, where you and I and our constituents live, is beginning to enjoy the economic revival we need and deserve.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I want to hear it again.

The Speaker: The member for Essex South seeks unanimous consent to hear it again. I heard a no.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I see those pesky, badgering, condescending, élitist members of the news media were trying to trick our Premier yesterday by demanding that he tell them the name of the favourite book he has read. The more cynical and suspicious of the pack were probably trying to relate the painfully long pause between the question and the answer to Bill 109, the bill which many believe will be extremely detrimental to libraries in Ontario and the people who read books in those libraries.

As Conservative government members have suggested so often, however, the media were simply trying to embarrass our Premier, quite unfairly, I might add. The reason it took Premier Harris 31 seconds to answer the question, "What is your favourite book?" was simple: The Premier was trying desperately to remember the title of the newly released book entitled Open for Business, Closed to People: Mike Harris's Ontario.

Edited by Diana Ralph, André Régimbald and Nérée St-Amand and published by Fernwood Publishing, their excellent, objective evaluation of the Mike Harris regime is available in paperback for only $19.95, a sum that could be found in your portion of the income tax cut that will force the government to borrow millions to finance and cut billions more in health, education and other services to achieve.

To quote from the cover of the book, "It explores the global corporate agenda that drives the Harris government -- its links to other Conservative governments, its manipulation of deficit hysteria and its attack on democracy itself."

The title, again, is not Mr Silly but rather Mike Harris's Ontario: Open for Business; Closed to People.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The Minister of Health approved the 1996-97 operating budget for the Sault area hospitals on the basis that the changes at Matthews Memorial Hospital in Richards Landing and Thessalon Hospital, which are satellite hospitals to the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital, would be monitored by the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital board and by the Algoma District Health Council. These changes included the closure of all in-patient beds at these rural hospitals and the maintenance of 24-hour emergency service at the hospitals, but with only one nurse on duty per shift.

It has come to my knowledge that neither the Plummer Memorial hospital nor the Algoma District Health Council is in fact monitoring the changes to determine whether adequate services are being provided at the Matthews Memorial Hospital in Richards Landing or at the Thessalon Hospital.

Also, interestingly enough, at Thessalon they've applied for a grant to renovate the building they are going to move into, and it has been denied by the northern Ontario heritage fund. I would hope the minister would act on this, carry out the proper monitoring that was promised and ensure that the funding is made available to Thessalon so we can have proper access to hospital services in these two communities.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Yesterday's third reading passage of Bill 104 ma