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

June 23, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L209a - Mon 23 Jun 1997 / Lun 23 Jun 1997

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR QUALITY

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

HATE LITERATURE

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

GROW ONTARIO

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

JOB GROWTH AND TAX REDUCTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CROISSANCE DE L'EMPLOI ET LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

DR BRIAN GAMBLE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ONTARIO GAMES FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH CARE

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

USE OF MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

BEAR HUNTING

RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COURT DECISION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to begin routine proceedings today with question period, followed by the deferred vote on Bill 129, followed by members' statements and ministers' statements, and then to proceed through as normal to motions.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. We have seen an air quality crisis develop in Ontario under your charge and under your responsibility. Our research has shown so far that on 18 occasions in the first 23 days of June the air quality level in the city of Toronto has reached the "unacceptable/unsatisfactory" rating by Environment Canada.

That means that on almost 75% of the days so far, on what has not been a very hot month, the air quality level has been unacceptable in the city of Toronto. Smog is creating havoc with people's lives. People who have breathing problems, people who have asthma are finding it very difficult so far.

What have you done? You've cut 92 air monitoring stations. You have left 13 communities across the province without any air monitoring facilities whatsoever. You've cut your staff by one third. Simply, you've abandoned the tools you need to monitor the air quality in Ontario. We're starting to see the results very clearly.

We have a crisis. Will you commit to bring in emergency legislation before the end of today's session to deal with this crisis in Ontario and take some steps to rectify the problem before the end of the summer?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I don't think air quality problems are new to Ontario; they're not new to the greater Toronto area. They are a serious problem that this government is dealing with in a more aggressive fashion than any previous governments have.

We are, as you know, updating our air quality standards, which have been left dormant for some 20 years. We introduced just a month ago new volatility gas regulations to improve the air quality of Ontario. We introduced a new PM10 standard for particulates, which had never been introduced by previous governments. We are focusing on this effort. We are attacking this particular problem in the most logical and reasonable fashion possible.

Mr Agostino: As usual, the minister failed to answer the question. Very clearly, we have seen so far, 75% of the days in the month of June, the air quality level in the city of Toronto has reached the unsatisfactory level. That to me does not seem to be dealing with this problem. What have you done? Absolutely nothing.

You've committed on over 25 occasions to bring in vehicle emissions testing in Toronto, and Ontario. On over 25 occasions you're on record as saying you're going to do it, and you've wasted time. You've gone to the United States, you've taken trips, you've run pilot projects, but the reality as of today is that we're going to go through another summer in this province of heavy pollution, heavy smog. You have responsibility to do something about it, and you've failed.

Fifty per cent of the air pollution in this province is caused by bad vehicle emissions. The testing would help minimize that. The tests would reduce that, Minister, and you've done absolutely nothing except talk about it. Today, will you commit to this Legislature when you plan to bring in vehicle emissions testing? Give us a time line, because so far you have failed on 25 occasions on the commitment you have made.

Hon Mr Sterling: There are good vehicle emissions testing programs in North America and there are bad ones. We will bring one in in due course that will be a good one, but we are going to be cautious in how we approach this problem because there have been so many failures in the 32 states and the one province in Canada that have tried this before. When we introduce a program, we will have a program that will work and that will have an effect on the emissions going into the air and will control those emissions.

Mr Agostino: Frankly, we don't believe you, because you've said this before. On at least 25 occasions we have you on record as talking about this program. The pilot project's been completed; you haven't released the information. Your trip to the United States has been completed; you haven't released that information.

Minister, you don't understand. By your own words, 1,800 people a year in this province die due to poor air quality; $365 million is added to health care. Let me put it in simple terms: Two to three people a day die in Metro Toronto as a result of poor air -- two to three people a day in Metro Toronto alone.

Municipalities are tired of waiting. Metro Toronto council passed a resolution last week asking for permission to run vehicle emissions programs. The chair, Joan King, said, "We've waited for the province to do something for a year and we've said, `If you're not going to do something, give us the tools and we can do it.'" The municipalities are getting frustrated. They understand the difficulty. You seem to be the only one who does not understand. I'm astonished today that you again would stand up in this House and not give us a clear date and commitment for vehicle emissions testing.

I'm going to ask you again, Minister, if you won't do it, will you give municipalities the power and the funding to run the programs and take over a job that you simply don't seem to have the responsibility or courage to do?

Hon Mr Sterling: I am indeed concerned about people who have trouble with the quality of air in Ontario. As I've said in this Legislature before, 50% of the problems relate to trans-border pollution and 50% of the problems are here. Part of that 50% relates to vehicle emissions, so we are looking at that part as a real opportunity to improve the air quality.

I might also remind the member that while there are premature deaths relating to air quality, there are premature deaths relating to other hazards we have; smoking, for instance. We have about 20 premature deaths in the greater Toronto area as a result of tobacco.

We have a number of problems to address. We are addressing this one more aggressively than any previous government has. We will come up with a good vehicle emissions program.

Mr Agostino: When?

Hon Mr Sterling: When we have it right. We don't have it right quite yet but we will have it right. When it is introduced it will get real results for the people of the greater Toronto area.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I asked you about amendments and what you have done on amendments to the Child Protection Act, what you've done with them for better protection of children the children's aid societies themselves feel are being threatened today. Today, the way the law is, it allows more protection for abusive parents than it does for abused children.

After that question last week, we again spoke to a number of people in the field, to learn that you have done absolutely nothing. Not a call to those who've supplied you with information. Your ministry has done nothing to pull together some sort of task force to actually draw up legislation. You refuse to appoint a child advocate, someone that would take on the leadership role you have refused to take on. When are you going to take that small, first step to introduce amendments to legislation? When are you going to show some leadership, Minister?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): The honourable member, not to put too fine a point on it, is in error in the information she's providing the House. We've had extensive consultation with the Association of Children's Aid Societies in terms of trying to develop steps that need to be done. She should be aware -- I'm assuming she is aware -- that we are completely restructuring children's services in this province to try and make sure that we are taking our resources and focusing on intervention and prevention. She should also be aware of the $45-million announcement that we made with the Premier a month or so ago.

One of the significant components of that is to screen babies at birth, newborns, to try and identify at that very early stage. She should also be aware that we've already tendered a contract to do the computer database that has been recommended. She should also be aware that in the budget we announced $15 million in additional resources that we could have to support responding to the recommendations.

I categorically reject her characterization of what is happening. We have taken steps; we will continue to take steps.

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Speaker, have you noticed that whenever we ask these ministers questions, we've got it all wrong? Have you noticed it's us? We've got it all wrong. Let me say this, Minister: You have social workers on the front line dealing with children in crisis today. These are different from children who need that instant initiation from government programs such as you describe. I am talking about children who are in crisis and social workers who have the highest levels of caseloads ever. They don't have time for training new staff people, let alone getting them out there.

The children's aid societies themselves don't have the funding for training, and given the state of the crisis for children under their view today, will you at least, at minimum, restore the funding cuts that you have made? I may say you've made them blindly, without any thought as to the impact of those cuts. Minister, will you restore that funding today?

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member had listened to what is being said at many of the inquests that are occurring, resources and how those resources are applied are only one of many steps that need to be taken to improve the system. For example, one of the things the ministry has just completed is a complete review of the standards for handling cases to see how children's aid societies are meeting those. It's the first time any government has gone out and done that. We have indeed done that, and that is identifying further things we need to do work on.

We already spend over $800,000 to assist children's aid societies in training. We will be increasing that amount of money. We know we need a better risk assessment mechanism. We'll be announcing that this week. There are a number of steps we have taken and will continue to take while we improve the system.

Mrs Pupatello: There are other agencies that you fund for child and youth programs, kids who have witnessed abuse or have been abused at home. Last week, you sent a letter to women's shelters across the province indicating that you've now cut by 20% the youth and child programs those women's shelters provide. Day after day, we ask you to show leadership. The coroner's inquests that are being held on those children are indicating a lack of leadership by you and your ministry.

We beg you to do more for these kids in crisis and at the same time you are cutting more, in this case, children and youth who have witnessed or have been abused in their homes and are now in shelters. Minister, when are you going to stand up and protect children?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, perhaps the honourable member has not been listening to the steps I have announced. I've talked about what we've done; I've been talking about what we're doing. We are going to increase resources. We said that very clearly in the budget. We're increasing resources for training. We'll also increase resources for children's aid workers to support when they have children coming in their care who have been witnesses to abuse. We've been very clear about those steps we are taking.

In addition, we've also been very clear that we will review the legislation. I want to make sure the experts who will advise us on doing that will give us the input we need on the key questions about whether the balance is right in the legislation or whether it's the way the legislation is being used by those on the front lines. Those are important questions.

She may think she has a simple answer to them. That's certainly not what I've been hearing from the experts, and we want to make sure we take appropriate steps.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the recent budget, the Minister of Finance went on at length about the fact that $15 million was to be allocated for responding to the Child Mortality Task Force. Can you tell us, Minister, how much of that $15 million will go to hiring more case workers at Ontario's 55 children's aid societies?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Whether or not we need additional case workers is certainly one of the issues that need to be considered, but before we do that, as the honourable member may know, there are a number of other steps -- the recommendations from the coroner's inquest -- the task force has talked about which are equally important: the way by which workers judge the risk; the way the legislation is being used; training budgets; increasing training.

There are a number of steps that need to be put in place to make sure the system we have is working as well as it can; that people who are in that system can work as well as they can. That certainly is another issue we need to consider.

Mr Hampton: I didn't hear an answer to my question. What I heard was evasion. Perhaps you can explain this: The reality is that many children's aid societies are being overwhelmed by their case loads. In Simcoe county, for example, the children's aid society case load in the first five months of this year was already more than two times last year's total. Social workers are carrying the highest case loads they've had in 15 years, and you stand up here and say that money is not the issue, more case workers isn't the issue.

What we find confusing is this: Your government, through the tax scheme you've arranged, is going to have all kinds of money for people whose incomes are over $100,000 a year. Bay Street executives are going to cash in on your tax gifts, yet when we ask you time and time again about children, you don't have any money. Minister, can you explain how you have money for people who are already wealthy through your tax scheme but you have no money for children who are --

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, who may wish to attempt to make a political point on this, we do indeed have resources available for children's aid societies, for high-risk prevention programs. As I said in answer to the previous question and I will repeat again, we've put forward $45 million for high-risk and prevention activities. We are restructuring the entire children's services to try and do exactly what has been recommended: that we need more of those resources on intervention and prevention.

I whould also like to mention the $800,000 we have in training. We will increase that to help them train their workers to deal with a situation. There are many steps we have taken and that we will continue to take to improve the system because we take those recommendations we've heard extremely seriously. A lot of thought and effort have gone into them and we want to make sure this government is responding expeditiously to them.

The Speaker: Order, please. I understand there's a bit of a din going on. Thank you.

Mr Hampton: I gather members in the Conservative caucus don't think this is an important question. They'd rather carry on their private conversations.

The minister tries to spin a good line.

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: You don't like it. That's the reality. We raise important questions about child welfare and you people carry on as if it's not a serious issue. That's the reality around here.

The problem is this: If we look at the budgets, this year there's another 2% cut to child and family intervention. It means that you've cut more than $7 million out of child and family intervention since you became the government. You can spin figures all you want. When we look at the budgets of children's aid societies, they have been cut; when we look at your own internal ministry budget for child and family intervention, it has been cut another 2% this year. You can spin all the numbers you want. The bottom line is, you have money for people who are wealthy, but for kids who are at risk, for kids who don't have resources, you don't have any money. Can you explain how that is?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Well, 655,000 low-income families and individuals will pay no Ontario income tax as a result of the changes that this government is bringing in, and that will help strengthen the financial bases for many of those families. Perhaps they do not believe that $140 million for low-income families to help them afford quality child care -- perhaps they think that is insignificant. Perhaps they think the $800,000 for training is insignificant. Perhaps they think the $45 million for intervention and prevention in terms of high-risk families is insignificant. Perhaps they don't agree that we should have $15 million in the budget to help respond to those recommendations.

If the honourable member, when he and his party were in power, had had as much concern for child welfare as they now claim today, perhaps they would not have cut child welfare budgets themselves.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Comsoc minister: Bottom line, you're cutting kids and you're giving money to the wealthiest people in this society.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, leader of the third party.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the government House leader, in the absence of the Premier: I'm going to bring over a copy of a modern-day Magna Carta. You may not remember the Magna Carta. King John was forced to sign it at Runnymede in the year 1215. It stands for the principle that, before governments pass laws, before kings try to make laws, they have to at least consult with the people. They cannot pass laws unilaterally without letting people know what's happening.

You're trying to shepherd through this House rule changes that will allow you to throw something on the table on Monday and pass it into law by Thursday. King John would be envious; in fact dictators in the modern world would be envious. Can you tell us why you need those kinds of powers, why you need to take us back before the years of King John? Can you tell us that, Minister?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I suspect King John and many other people who support democratic principles would say that within --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: I will simply say in terms of the democratic principles of the standing order changes being proposed that they do allow for more debating time for the members of this House; they do allow for more individual members to be involved in the debate of this House; they do involve allowing members to abstain if that's the choice of the members of this particular House; they do involve the privileges of the independent member in this House and allowing that independent member more rights and privileges in this House. I would say the democratic principles in terms of this House are being enhanced by the standing order procedures we are proposing to bring forward.

Mr Hampton: The salient part of that answer is that the government House leader thinks King John was a democrat. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. I think what we realize here is that the Premier is not very good with his numbers and you're not very good with history.

Democracy is not just about which member here gets to speak. It's also about the opportunity for the press to scrutinize your legislation; it's about the opportunity for the press to have the time to put information out; it's about the opportunity for the public to read and understand what you're trying to pass. That's what you're trying to take out of the democratic process.

Under your rules, essentially people who sit here and try to report on what's happening become irrelevant. If you introduce it on Monday, before their reports get to the public you've passed the law. The public is shut out of the democratic process. Do you not understand that? That's the sum total effect.

Hon David Johnson: What I understand is that in 1992 the government of the day proposed to bring forward changes to the standing orders and indeed did at that time. The most notable aspect of those changes to the House procedures was a time allocation provision. It's interesting that the leader of the party that first brought forward the time allocation motion would take the sort of approach he is taking.

In addition to the provisions I've noted, many of which are in place in the federal House at present and seem to work well there, one other provision is a requirement that this House actually vote on a budget. In seven of the last 10 years, there has not been a vote. Is that not a democratic thing to do, actually vote on a budget? Is that not something the people of Ontario would expect us to do? I think that's a good thing.

Mr Hampton: The government House leader refers to the federal Parliament. We looked at the federal Parliament, and nowhere do they have the capacity to introduce a piece of legislation on Monday and pass it into law by Thursday. In fact, no Parliament across Canada has that power or is seeking that power. Your government, and your government alone, seeks to rush through legislation at such a pace that you shut the press out of their proper role in a democracy, of reporting, and you shut the public out of having an opportunity to understand whether you're passing a good law or a bad law. Your government, and your government alone, seeks to have those almost dictatorial powers.

Tell me this, Minister: Why should a government whose hasty and thoughtless actions have made such a mess of the family support plan, brought in the Bill 26 omnibus legislation, made a mess of hospital closings, made a mess of your megacity scheme -- why should a government that's been reckless and thoughtless in all those things have the power now to ram through legislation in less than three days?

Hon Mr Johnson: The leader of the third party might have added: a government that has reduced the deficit of the province from the $11 billion you left us, a government that's got Ontario back on track with the economy --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: We're a government that has reduced taxes, reduced the deficit, reduced unemployment, that's got this economy back on track.

The previous government introduced, through the closure motion, through the time allocation motion, the ability to put a bill through from second reading to third reading in five days, effectively. I have stated categorically that we will not reduce that time. At the end of the day, whenever this debate is finished, you can rest assured that this government will not reduce that time that you brought in in 1992.

HATE LITERATURE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is to the Attorney General. I'm rising on an issue that is of serious concern to the people in my riding but I believe also to people throughout Ontario.

A week ago last Friday some literature was distributed by a group from outside my riding to students at a high school and to the residents living in the immediate vicinity. What it does is it excoriates a religion and at the same time takes a negative and hateful view of students simply because of their religion. As you can imagine, there's been a response within that constituency, within Weston. In fact there's been a response by the hate crimes unit of the Metropolitan Toronto Police.

Attorney General, I rise today to ask you if you're aware of the information that's been conveyed to you by the Metro police and when we might expect from you the decision that's required on this particular case.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I concur with the member that this is something that cannot and should not be tolerated. The police are investigating. I personally have had no contact with the police. Generally, the procedure is that the police investigate complaints that come to their attention. If the police need legal advice, they have access to crown law officers who can provide the advice upon their request. If the member would provide me with the details, I certainly will inquire within the crown law office if indeed that is the case.

Mr Kennedy: I'm sure you recognize that in cases like this, where someone is deliberately trying to poison people's view of other people in society, timeliness is an issue. The Metro police hate crimes unit have completed their investigation. We want to congratulate them for expeditiously moving in recognition of this.

Area elected officials are moving to work together to condemn this statement, but you, Attorney General, under

section 319 of the Criminal Code, have the unique ability to express the sanction of society. What I'd like to know and what my constituents would like to know is, will you be acting soon either to authorize that charges be laid or, given that you don't have that information, to ensure that you become aware so we can move as quickly as possible with the sanction that is afforded you by that

section of the law?

Hon Mr Harnick: I want to advise the honourable member of the procedure that takes place when a prosecution is to take place under

section 319. A recommendation is made to the Attorney General, who reviews the material as a quasi-judicial officer and then makes a determination whether to consent to the prosecution under

section 319.

That material has not been delivered from the Metropolitan Toronto Police hate crimes unit. The paperwork that goes with it and the briefing material that has to come to me to be able to review the matter and make that determination, if it is following that course, has not been delivered to me. I can tell the honourable member that in other cases when the material is provided to me, I take a very detailed and comprehensive approach to reviewing it. I do it within a matter of hours of receiving it. You have my commitment on that.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, and the question is regarding one of his recent appointments to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. You've appointed Mr Norman Seabrook to the Niagara Escarpment Commission despite the fact that he has an obvious conflict of interest. Mr Seabrook has an application before the Niagara Escarpment Commission to remove his property in Holland township from the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.

Surely the minister understands that it is completely inappropriate to sit on the commission and at the same time have an application before the commission to remove your property from the Niagara Escarpment Plan area. Minister, were you aware of this conflict of interest before you appointed Mr Seabrook?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I appreciate the member of the third party's question. As she knows, these are nominations to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. They're taken under consideration, they're put forward to a committee and there's a process in this democratically elected House called the public appointments committee. At this committee level they will look to see if there are any conflicts of interest. If her allegation is correct, of course the government will make sure that any conflicts are taken into account before they're appointed.

Ms Martel: I say to the minister, what is your responsibility --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Ms Martel: Minister, as the person responsible for making the appointment or the nomination, you have a responsibility to ensure a person does not have a conflict of interest. That's your responsibility.

Over and above that, Mr Seabrook is a leading figure in the Grey Association for Democracy and Growth, an organization which has consistently railed against the Niagara Escarpment Commission, its mandate and its operation. In 1995, at the NEC's Leading Edge research conference, Mr Seabrook was publicly highly critical of the commission. In his closing remarks, he recommended, "Terminate the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act."

Minister, don't you think it's time to pull the plug on Mr Seabrook's appointment?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I stated before, these are nominations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I find it kind of ironic that one minute they're talking about rule changes and accusing us of subverting their democratic will. Today they want us to short-circuit the process that's established for public appointments where members who are democratically elected get a chance to review appointments. They want to do away with that and they call that democracy. They make an allegation and say automatically they're the judge and jury, that that's the way it should happen.

There is a process in this place that respects people's rights. These appointments are nominated in good faith on the best people available for the job. There's a balance that's required and we're pleased with our appointments.

However, if there are conflicts of interest, the government will have to make sure we're satisfied with all the people and that conflicts do not exist before this appointment would become final.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The day has been rearranged so many members can attend the funeral of the late Mr Larry Grossman. To this point in time, the government refuses to tell the opposition what it's going to call for debate this afternoon. I wonder whether this can be ironed out because we wouldn't want the government to hide behind something --

The Speaker: Order. That's not a point of order. Clearly, it's something the House leaders would discuss.

GROW ONTARIO

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Recently I had the privilege of attending with you Grow Ontario announcements in Leamington for the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Producers Marketing Board. As you know, Leamington has by far the largest area of greenhouses anywhere in Canada. You and I both enjoyed the great taste of their cucumbers and tomatoes while we were there. Can you inform the House what these Grow Ontario projects have meant for the Ontario agrifood industry?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Chatham-Kent for that very important question. Yes, I was in the Leamington area with my colleague and I simply want to tell my colleagues in this Legislature of the importance of the agrifood sector.

Ontario's greenhouse production of tomatoes and cucumbers has more than doubled, to $100 million, from 1994 to 1996. The quality that Ontario producers are putting is very impressive to our American neighbours and most of that production is going to the northern United States. In spite of the fact that the opposition seems to think the agrifood sector is not important, it is the second most important business in Ontario.

Mr Carroll: The agrifood producers in my riding and indeed all of southwestern Ontario are happy with your commitment and our government's commitment to their industry. Can you inform the members of what else Ontario is doing to boost exports of our top-notch products?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I'm pleased to report that in Ontario, $5.3 billion of agrifood exports were sent to the world last year and this government is committed to boosting our agrifood exports to the area of some $10 billion by the turn of the century. As Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, I want to tell my colleagues here that for every $1 billion of exports, 15,000 new jobs are created in Ontario. That's what this government is doing and we are supporting the agrifood business.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. Your announcement on secondary school reform is a major retreat from your original proposals. Those were so poorly thought out and objectionable that the criticism you got was overwhelming and you had no choice but to back down from them.

But part of your announcement last Friday is puzzling because you still talked about removing grade 13 and bringing in a four-year program. In fact, the words of your announcement could have been recycled from a speech made in 1984 by a former Tory Minister of Education, Bette Stephenson, when she did in fact eliminate grade 13 and introduced a credit program. You're keeping exactly the same number of credits and the same number of credit hours as were in place before. I'm wondering exactly where you have shortened the program.

Are you going to force students to do their 30 credits in four years by denying them the chance to do any extra credits in areas like art or music or phys ed? Is that how you're going to force them to do this in four years?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): With all due respect, the honourable member knows that's not the case, knows that arts and drama, that some of the physical activities in school will still be there in a four-year secondary school program. Obviously those programs are part of the four-year secondary school programs that are in the other nine provinces and in all 50 states. The only exception has been Ontario.

Yes, we have lagged behind taking up the recommendations of two royal commissions in moving to a four-year secondary school program. The announcements we made last Friday suggest that this government is moving forward very steadily to that four-year program, doing so in concert with educators, with parents and with students, and making sure that our new program meets the needs of our students, not just today but on in the future.

The question that remains is why the member opposite didn't make these changes, didn't answer the royal commissions' suggestion that we go to a four-year program when you were in office. Why did it take this long to bring this reform to our secondary schools? It's a question that remains unanswered by the member opposite.

Mrs McLeod: I'm concerned about the unanswered questions by the Minister of Education, who has certainly not implemented the royal commission recommendations on the secondary school curriculum -- far from that. He certainly has not, by anything that we know of what he said on Friday, made any changes in terms of the length of time students would be in school based on the number of credits they do or the number of hours they need to do those credits.

We don't know what the Minister of Education is actually planning to do. That's why I'm asking the question. We know that he's delaying his plan, which isn't a plan at all, for two years, and that all he's really done is made another political announcement. He's delaying any changes he might have in mind because he had to go back to the drawing board. He has nothing to go forward with.

I guess one of the things I wish is that he had been held back, for the same reasons, from demanding that his elementary school curriculum be in place for this September, because that was another political announcement that is being rammed through. He's going ahead with his so-called rigorous curriculum in elementary school, but he has no curriculum materials to back it up with.

I wonder if you would tell --

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

Mrs McLeod: This is the question, Mr Speaker: Would this minister tell the grade 7 students he spoke to on Friday exactly how they are supposed to master his rigorous curriculum?

Hon Mr Snobelen: For the edification of the member opposite, they were grade 6 students I was talking to last Friday who will be entering grade 7 next year, who will be the first students to take advantage of a curriculum that, in math and languages, is very clear about the expectations we have of students on a year-by-year basis, because students and teachers and parents would like to know very clearly what level of achievement, what level of skill and knowledge is necessary to be successful year by year.

Those are things that were denied the parents and teachers and students by your government when you were in power, and by that government when it was in power. Finally, we have answered that. For that group of students going into grade 7 next year, those expectations will be there, a demanding new curriculum. They will graduate into a secondary school program that's been designed to meet their needs, where most people will go through in four years and have the same graduation standards they now have with OAC.

Again, these are not political statements. What's absent is courage and leadership from the two political parties that ran this province over the last --

The Speaker: New question, third party.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That cut me to the quick. I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training as well. This government has a penchant for shutting down democracy and shutting out the public. The government rammed through the Fewer School Boards Act with time allocation and then changed the time allocation to remove the opportunity for committee of the whole House consideration, because they said they wanted to get it through as quickly as possible to be in place for January 1.

We have today many people who want to serve their communities, even in the reduced role you're now giving school trustees, but they can't register as candidates because of your delays in implementing the legislation that you said was so urgent. What is the reason for this kind of rush and then a delay subsequently that means that the people who want to run will not be able to register in time?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Algoma for the question. I will perhaps have to straighten out his memory a little bit.

First of all, the reason Bill 104 did not go to committee of the whole House wasn't because of some particular urgency in getting the bill through that week, by this government; it was because based on the performance in Bill 103, we thought it might be good to get Bill 104 through this Legislature during this century so we could get on with the business of reforming education, so we could get on with the business of lowering the cost of bureaucracy in our school system so we could make reinvestments into the classroom to make a difference with our students.

That's why we didn't go to committee of the whole House, just for reference.

If the member for Algoma will think back to that time, during Bill 103, he might see the cause of the delay in bringing forth Bill 104, the cause of the delay to the electoral process across the province, and he might want to answer those people who would like to get about the business of reforming this system as to why he and his colleagues delayed the passage of the bill.

Mr Wildman: Since the minister asked me a question, I'll answer him. We delayed 103 because we believe in democracy and public input into the legislative process. What we see happening in the electoral process today at the school board level is a sign of what will happen if your government gets these rule changes through, which will make it possible for you to ram through even more pieces of legislation even more quickly.

Sometimes when you do things in a hurry they are not well prepared, not well-thought-out, and sometimes you make mistakes. That's why scrutiny is so important. Why won't you admit that the Ontario voters deserve to see a government listen, and be prepared to listen rather than simply limit public debate about legislation you want to proceed with?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think it's not simply a matter of a belief in democracy. I wish the member opposite and his colleagues believed as firmly in the need to reduce the bureaucracy in our education system, in the need to fix the funding system so there are no longer second-class students in Ontario. I know that in the member's own riding this is an important issue for people, that there be a fair funding model, and Bill 104 is part of that building block. It needs to go there to replace a system that produces mediocre student achievement, which is not what students in Ontario are up to, which is not what teachers in Ontario are up to, and so we're building that system piece by piece.

In direct answer to the member's question, right now there are in place local education improvement committees that are working with clerks to make sure that the election process this year will go forward and that the people elected as trustees for these new district school councils will be in place, ready to answer the local community needs.

TELEMARKETING PRACTICES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, in my riding of Durham East, many constituents have called with a very high degree of concern about the 1-900 employment telephone numbers. As you know, the 1-900 numbers result in a charge back to the caller. What steps are you taking to protect my constituents from these unscrupulous business practices?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): First of all, I think we're all very concerned with respect to any type of fraudulent telemarketing practices. It seems right now the soup du jour is the 1-900 numbers that deal with employment opportunities to the public.

I take the opportunity right now to congratulate my colleague from York-Mackenzie who actually led the charge with respect to employment ads that were being printed. My colleague had taken some steps to go before the CRTC and they had ruled, as a result of his action, that the telephone companies belonging to the centre group of phone companies across Canada, including Bell Canada, can no longer act as a billing and collection agency for companies.

We continually try to get out consumer advisories through the media, and we also use the vehicle of Consumer Beat to make sure the public knows. I can only warn the public that they must read the fine print. The end result of all this is that the consumers, when they call the 1-900 numbers, do get charged for the time they spend.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate this opportunity to educate the public on the use of the 1-900 telephone numbers. Yes, Minister, I'm aware of the hard work of the member for York-Mackenzie, Mr Klees, in defence of all consumers in this province, along with yourself.

Minister, with regard to telemarketing fraud, how successful have your efforts been to date?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would like to point out again that the initiative in Ontario, and certainly across the country, was started really at the impetus of the OPP, who started an organization called Project Phonebusters. Project Phonebusters is a cooperative effort of not only the Ontario Provincial Police but the RCMP, our ministry, Industry Canada, and certainly we've involved the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Couriers Association, because they are the vehicle quite often that some of these 1-900 scams try to use to confuse and get payment from the consumer.

I think the OPP and certainly Project Phonebusters have had quite a large effect in terms of this type of telemarketing fraud, because it has resulted in about a 40% reduction in this type of fraud in the province since then. Charges are continuing to be laid and certainly the OPP and Project Phonebusters are tremendous organizations which are really leading the charge across the country.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the minister of municipalities. Last week, residents and commercial businesses in the Ottawa-Carleton area received a notice from the Ottawa-Carleton Police Department informing them that they are now --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I understand. Member for Durham East, I don't think he meant anything derogatory about it, but it is Minister of Municipal Affairs, if we're going to be technical.

Mr Patten: The Minister of Municipal Affairs. They were being notified that they were required to pay a fee to have police respond to a burglar alarm. This new user fee could turn into a big cash cow for the police, who are now required to raise their own funds. But they're notifying people that if they don't pay up, the police won't respond to the alarm, whether or not there's a break-in, so this is double taxation.

Everyone knows that you are the one who's responsible, Minister, for this new user fee. Your government opened the door with Bill 26 --

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Patten: -- and your massive cuts to public services and downloading everywhere. Can you explain why people of our area are having to pay more than twice for police services?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member of the official opposition, the decision whether to have a user fee for false alarms clearly rests with the municipality. It's not a unique user fee; it's in municipalities right across Ontario. Many municipalities exempt the first three calls and then charge for every one after that, to make sure that there is some responsibility on behalf of homeowners and apartment owners, to make sure there is some control over false alarms. But again the responsibility lies clearly with the municipality. If they choose to put a user fee on that type of service, it's certainly within their prerogative to do so.

Mr Patten: The minister doesn't understand. This is a registration fee over and above everything else, before the fact, and if you don't register, you will not be responded to if indeed there is an alarm. This is a proliferation that's going on all across Ontario as a result of the pressure and the loss of services and downloading on to municipalities.

Let me tell you what Aron Spector of Ottawa has had to say. He sent me a letter and he says:

"I am quite perturbed about the need to pay...$26 for police service that I already pay for in my property taxes, and indirectly, in the taxes I pay to the provincial government....

"I estimate that in the last two years, new costs to my family...are now approaching 500%" of their provincial tax cuts.

Can you explain to Mr Spector and other residents and businesses in the Ottawa-Carleton area why they should have to pay for police services more than twice, not only through their local property tax, not only through their provincial tax, but now a registration fee on top of that?

Hon Mr Leach: It is a local decision. It's up to the local municipalities to determine what services they apply user fees to. Some municipalities have chosen to apply fees for false alarms and for other services, some have chosen to put $1 a bag on garbage, some have done many other types of user fees. Municipalities are becoming more cost-effective. There are ways of making the residents of communities pay for the services they receive. This is one of the matters Ottawa has selected to adopt. It's up to the duly elected council of Ottawa-Carleton to do that, and if that's what they've chosen to do, that's certainly not something this government would interfere with.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board in the absence of the minister responsible for women's issues. I have a question about this government's habit of shutting down democracy and shutting out the public.

Several months ago your government's plan to cut services for abused women was exposed for what it really is with the unplanned release of your McGuire report. Now we understand that you're about to come out, perhaps tomorrow even, with your plans for services for abused women and their children, which have been written once again behind closed doors and without the benefit of any consultation.

I'm asking you today, Minister, when you release your plans for those services, will you commit to a public consultation process before any implementation?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I am not able to make any announcements here today, but I would say to the member opposite that I will convey her request to the minister responsible for women's issues. I know the minister was here earlier today, but because of the untimely situation we face today, many members have left the House. I will convey the request to the minister responsible.

Ms Churley: I understand why many people have had to leave today; I'm certainly not commenting on that. But I do want to say to the minister that it's very important that he convey to the minister and to the Premier as well that there is a funny spin being put on this issue and I don't want to hear that spin tomorrow from the minister.

You've assumed the municipal portion of funding women's shelters. You will recall that's part of your Who Does What plan. At the same time, you try to talk about expansion of services with the automatic increase in your budget that comes from the municipal share. That is double counting, Minister. That is no expansion. We know that your government to date has a history of doing away with equity and gender-based services, so we want to make sure tomorrow that there is not such a spin on it. We don't want to see double counting and we want a promise of public consultation.

Hon David Johnson: With regard to public consultation, I can only say that this government has had more public consultation than the previous governments. Last year, in terms of public hearings on the legislation, this government not only had more days, more hours of public consultation than either of the previous two governments, but this government had much of the consultation time right across the province.

I'm so delighted that this government has taken the opportunity to travel to Ottawa, to Windsor, to Sault Ste Marie, to Thunder Bay, to many fine communities across the province to listen to the people of Ontario, to have the people of Ontario assist us in making legislation for this House. In that way, we get better legislation.

I'll assure the member opposite that this government is committed to maintaining that we listen to the people of Ontario and to involving the people of Ontario in all the legislative initiatives that we pass through this House.

JOB GROWTH AND TAX REDUCTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CROISSANCE DE L'EMPLOI ET LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 129,

An Act to stimulate job growth, to reduce taxes and to implement other measures contained in the 1997 Budget / Projet de loi 129, Loi visant à stimuler la croissance de l'emploi, à réduire les impôts et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1997.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Immediately following question period will be second reading of Bill 129, according to the order paper, moved by Ms Bassett. It will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1435 to 1440.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Hardeman, Ernie

Ross, Lillian

Baird, John R.

Hodgson, Chris

Sampson, Rob

Barrett, Toby

Johns, Helen

Shea, Derwyn

Beaubien, Marcel

Johnson, Bert

Sheehan, Frank

Boushy, Dave

Johnson, David

Skarica, Toni

Brown, Jim

Jordan, W. Leo

Smith, Bruce

Carr, Gary

Kells, Morley

Snobelen, John

Carroll, Jack

Klees, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Chudleigh, Ted

Leadston, Gary L.

Stewart, R. Gary

Danford, Harry

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Doyle, Ed

Maves, Bart

Tsubouchi, David H.

Elliott, Brenda

Munro, Julia

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fisher, Barbara

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Wood, Bob

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Young, Terence H.

Gilchrist, Steve

Parker, John L.

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Morin, Gilles E.

Bradley, James J.

Hoy, Pat

North, Peter

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Patten, Richard

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Pupatello, Sandra

Colle, Mike

Marchese, Rosario

Ramsay, David

Conway, Sean G.

Martel, Shelley

Silipo, Tony

Duncan, Dwight

Martin, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed? No. Well, committee of the whole.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I need some direction, I think. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): This is a bill that we're hoping will go through for third reading debate.

The Speaker: Let me just explain it quickly: I've asked for third reading. There was a no, therefore I've asked for committee of the whole. It will go to committee of the whole unless you can direct me to send it to one of the committees. Committee of the whole House.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My remarks today are addressed to all my colleagues in the House, to the media and to the people of Ontario. One of the hazards of being born in a long-standing democracy is that we take it for granted that it will always be with us and that, "It cannot happen here."

On June 19, 1992, this is what the Honourable Norm Sterling had to say when in opposition: "In our 125-year history the rules...have never been changed without negotiation with the other political parties. Parliament is intended to be a balance between the right of the government to govern and the opposition to oppose. In a majority Parliament, the only tool for the opposition is to seek compromise and to delay."

These current changes will affect everyone. They will enable the government to pass legislation, no matter how significant, within a few days without a reasonable opportunity for the opposition, the media and you the public to react to what is being introduced. If apathy is the enemy of democracy, media and public cynicism are its partners. I urge everyone to speak up.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The government rule changes work to shut out and shut down any media or public opposition to its right-wing Reform agenda. The rule changes are part and parcel of the Conservative government's ongoing attempts to muzzle opposition members, avoid public scrutiny, and drastically reduce public participation in the democratic process in Ontario.

Consider time frames to respond to discussion papers. Affected groups get documents and have impossible deadlines for review and reply. Parties must attend quick briefings with many other groups. There's no time left to raise concerns. Parties get 24 hours' notice that a parliamentary assistant is coming to town and they have 15 minutes to meet and express concerns; or, only corporate friends of the government get consulted in advance and other parties have limited or no input after a bill is introduced.

This Conservative government severely restricts public hearings because ministers don't want to hear opposing points of view. There were no hearings on Bill 7, which took labour laws back 50 years. There was only one day of debate in Toronto on changes to public libraries. This government wants to ram through Bill 99, the gutting of workers' compensation, in a process where only 130 out of over 1,300 possible presenters might be heard.

This government's approach is completely undemocratic. The Conservative back bench needs to learn that rule changes won't make this place work any faster. Proceeding with draconian changes in an arbitrary way will only make the label "dictatorship" stick. Since some of your own are already publicly calling it what it is, you can bet your current actions are only going to reinforce that view.

DR BRIAN GAMBLE

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Today I'd like to pay tribute to a physician from my riding who has recently been honoured for forwarding the principles of family medicine in a significant manner.

Dr Brian Gamble was one of 15 Ontario doctors to earn a fellowship in family medicine from the College of Family Physicians of Canada and is the first from Kent county to be so honoured.

The college, in naming Dr Gamble to a fellowship, cited him for such achievements as helping fellow physicians with new computer systems at work; his work in primary care reform with the Ontario Medical Association; and the significant work he has done to boost cooperation between the Ontario Medical Association and the college. It is perhaps this latter achievement that most clearly underscores Dr Gamble's dedication to his profession and the respect in which he is held by his peers, his community and those of us who know him well.

I have known and worked closely with Dr Gamble over the years, including the time I served as chairman of the St Joseph's Hospital board. During that time I have come to admire his innate ability and affable willingness to help develop successful solutions to the issues we faced. I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge Dr Gamble's wife, Joanne, and his children, whose support and understanding have been most important.

I know all members join me in congratulating Dr Gamble on this honour and wishing him continued success in all his endeavours.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to use this opportunity today to plead once again with the Minister of Health to recognize that the decisions made by the Health Services Restructuring Commission are leaving health care in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario in an increasingly perilous state.

for example, we now know that mental health care has reached a point where a patient, even in severe psychiatric need, must wait six months for an appointment. The reason is that we only have six psychiatrists left in Thunder Bay to provide the service, and the reason they're leaving is the utter state of confusion that restructuring has left us in.

Also, because of the speed with which restructuring is taking place we have a severe shortage of acute care beds, with the patients there being tended by overworked, exhausted staff who often cannot meet the needs of the people for whom they are trained to care.

But the situation becomes even more grim when we learn that the waiting list for long-term care in Thunder Bay has now grown to over 500 people, a list that can only increase with the mandated reduction in our chronic care capacity. Yet in our long-term-care facilities, staff and family members are horrified because your government no longer funds the minimum 2.25 hours of care per day per resident, which at least guaranteed a level of dignity to our elderly and frail population.

Perhaps dignity is what is being lost throughout the system. Minister, in your headlong rush to change the system, you seem to have forgotten about the people who rely on our health care system. Unless you are prepared to step in and view health care from the eyes of those who need the care, your legacy will be that of a minister who, in his haste to renovate the house, somehow destroyed the foundation.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This weekend in Sault Ste Marie people were just beside themselves when I explained to them what this government was attempting to do by way of the rule changes. They're already shell-shocked re the impact of the agenda of this government and the devastation it's having on people and the reckless nature of everything that's going on. To be told that this is going to happen to them even faster and with less input by them is shocking.

However, there are some good things happening. People are taking some leadership in light of the lack of leadership from this government to try to put in place and develop some new strategies, particularly around the question of jobs and jobs for young people. On Saturday I participated with a group of very excited and energized young people under the leadership of the Economic Development Corp.

A group called the opportunities for youth task committee put on a workshop at the Water Tower Inn to listen to young people, to listen to other stakeholders in the community, to share and come together around some possible strategies in front of the devastatingly high percentage of people unemployed in our community and across the province, particularly the high percentage of young people who find themselves without any hope, without any opportunity, without any vision for the future because this government has abandoned any responsibility they have to put in place a strategy that would provide jobs for anybody in Ontario, particularly young people.

ONTARIO GAMES FOR THE PHYSICALLY DISABLED

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I would like to inform members of this House about the 1997 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled, which will take place in New Liskeard from July 10 to 13.

Approximately 120 of the province's best athletes with physical disabilities will vie for medals. They will display their talents in bocce, golf, power lifting, slalom and track and field.

The Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled, launched in 1975, have created many more opportunities for athletes with disabilities to hone their skills and progress to national and international competitions. These games, and the athletes in particular, help enormously to increase public awareness and understanding of persons with physical disabilities.

The games also give athletes the opportunity to display their talents on the provincial stage, strive for personal bests and gain valuable experience that comes from exchanges with fellow athletes at major competitions such as this. Ontario's athletes with disabilities, through dedication and hard work, set a standard of excellence that inspires our youth to participate in sport across Ontario. We are all very proud of them.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of New Liskeard for acting as gracious hosts for this most important event. I believe I speak for all members of this House when I wish the very best of success to every athlete competing at the 1997 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Education. I have a press clipping here from the June 20 edition of the Kenora Daily Miner and News. The headline reads "Newspaper Receives Curriculum Before Teachers." Teachers in my riding, and indeed throughout the province, want you to explain why you did not see fit to give them a copy of the new math and language curriculum before it got to the media.

It's unusual that the minister would provide this material to the media first and forget about the teachers who have to implement these when they go back to the classroom in September. I think the minister should be ashamed that the teachers had to find out about the policy through the media, which reported on it before the teachers even saw it.

Linda-Beth Marr is the president of the Kenora Women's Teachers' Association, and she certainly indicated to the minister that she was not happy. She indicated this by saying: "We are leaving today without a curriculum in our hands. This is not right, but it is not surprising. Teachers have been excluded from the development of the curriculum as well."

On behalf of Ontario teachers, I call upon the Minister of Education to apologize for ignoring and not including them in the development process of this new curriculum. Ontario teachers want you to explain why you're asking them to implement your policy but refusing to provide time, with the necessary tools in a timely fashion.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Downloading by this government on to regions and then on down to municipalities is going to generate higher and higher property taxes and reduce services for those least capable of paying those higher taxes and those most in need of those services.

The Canadian Automobile Association -- Niagara has recently expressed its great concern about the downloading of provincial roads on to the regional municipality of Niagara, kilometre after kilometre after kilometre, which is going to result in the downloading of regional roads on to municipalities. CAA -- Niagara -- and I tell you, I am in complete accord with them -- points out that municipalities will simply not be in a position to build or maintain roads to established Ontario standards.

This is going to create a patchwork quilt approach to roadways across this province and across regions, it's going to directly impact on industry and any industrial growth that might be developed within any part of Ontario and certainly within Niagara, where with an unemployment level of 10.9% and growing, this region has been ill served by this government to date.

CAA points out, and again I join with them, that if the province is adamant about continuing to download responsibility for roads to the municipal tier, it should also be transferring the revenue collected from Ontario motorists to the municipalities. This government, Mike Harris's Tories, has been playing a cruel trick on municipalities and municipal taxpayers across this province, Niagara included.

HEALTH CARE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): After recently hearing remarks made about the health care system in Peterborough, I feel the need to express my thoughts.

Our health care system should be above the political fray. Health care is the only thing common to each and every citizen in Ontario. By politicizing death and illness, we do nothing but hurt everyone involved.

The comments I am referring to involve a situation where patients were found in the hallways of Peterborough Civic Hospital. Unfortunately, patients have been in the halls for many, many years and it is totally unacceptable. However, Ministry of Health officials and hospital staff are taking appropriate measures to rectify this most serious problem.

Operational reviews and restructuring reports have been conducted and the time to act on those reports is now. Patients and all front-line staff deserve the best possible health care available.

Too much finger-pointing by everyone has occurred over the last number of months. I ask all parties involved to work together on this most important issue. Real cooperation is the best means by which to solve any difficult issue, and our health care situation is no exception.

Our front-line health care workers, from the cleaning staff to the nurses, do an incredible job. The commitment they make to local health care is appreciated by our entire community. Let me personally thank everyone --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I have an announcement, and then I want to talk about one of the statements. I beg to inform the House that on Friday, June 20, 1997, the 22nd annual report of the Commission on Election Finances, for the year 1996, was tabled.

USE OF MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Today the member for High Park-Swansea made a statement with respect to the 1997 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled. I've already cautioned members about this before. The member is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

First off, the front page of the statement said, "Member's statement to the Legislature on the 1997 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled, by Derwyn Shea, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation." It's marked "Confidential."

This talked in paragraph two about "Approximately 120 of the province's best athletes with physical disabilities will vie for medals. They will display their talents in bocce," etc. "The Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled, launched in 1975, have created many more opportunities for athletes," and it also announced to the House that the 1997 Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled will take place in New Liskeard from July 10 to 13.

This is not an appropriate announcement for a parliamentary assistant to make. This is an announcement for a minister to make. Then the opposition are allowed an opportunity to respond to these kinds of announcements.

I've mentioned this before, and I want to be very clear to parliamentary assistants. In the future, if you are uncertain, particularly if you're announcing anything to do with the ministry you happen to be parliamentary assistant in, I would ask that you check with the Clerk's table before you make these announcements because now that the announcement has been made, I have no power to allow opposition five minutes to respond.

It's simply a case where the rules are very clear. I would ask parliamentary assistants to check, be careful before you make the announcement if it's in your ministry and in future it would make things a lot easier to handle. Also, ministers, if these announcements are coming out, these are ministerial announcements to be made by ministers during ministerial announcement period and opposition will then get five minutes to respond. Thank you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of your statement, I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to allow the critics for the ministry to make their five-minute responses to this ministerial statement.

The Speaker: The House leader for the third party has asked for unanimous consent for five minutes for opposition parties to respond. Agreed? I heard a no.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the fact that is at least the second time --

Mr Wildman: You better learn what the rules are before you try to change them.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: In light of the fact that is at least the second time that you have addressed this very same issue and in light of the fact that it is an issue of serious concern to the opposition because once the opportunity to respond has been missed, it has been missed for the foreseeable future, I wonder if there's a way you have of communicating your decision on this and your caution on this to all the parliamentary assistants who are clearly not here today.

The Speaker: The member for Fort William, I just did and I couldn't have been any clearer than I was. Maybe I wasn't clear the first time and that could have been my fault. I think this time I have been abundantly clear and I'm very certain that all parliamentary assistants in the government now are fully cognizant of the rule and that they will pass it on to the members who are as well.

Mr Wildman: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know if you're aware, Speaker, but the no that you heard in response to the request for unanimous consent came from the minister. That indicates this was intentional. The minister intended this to happen.

The Speaker: No.

Mr Wildman: She led the noes.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I ask you to come to order. There was more than one no, and I will say that I heard a number of noes on the other side.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It deals with a violation of the rules that I think has been committed once again. As we all know, the standing orders of this House are paramount in the way in which we conduct ourselves. Here we are, 15 minutes right after petitions, which may be shorter than that, before we get into orders of the day.

Rule 55 is quite clear. It says, "Before the adjournment of the House on each Thursday during the session, the government House leader shall announce the business for the following week." To the best of my recollection, this has not happened for the last five or six weeks in regard to what exactly would be discussed in this House each week.

I would ask you to take this matter under advisement and to, in effect, hold the government accountable. They have violated the standing order the way it presently exists. I know in the amendments that have been moved forward, they want to change this to "may announce," but in fact they have not announced it.

Currently, House rule 55 is very specific: "...the government House leader shall announce the business for the following week." He did not do this on Thursday evening and he has not done so today, which leaves the opposition, quite frankly, in a very precarious position since we don't know what's going to be called and our various speakers who may wish to speak on the various issues don't know whether to get ready for today's debate or not.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm going to rule, unless you want to have input into this particular one.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Actually, would it be appropriate for me to talk on both of the issues, just quickly?

The Speaker: I don't know which two there are.

Hon David Johnson: The one that you previously ruled on, and we certainly respect your ruling. I think it may be germane --

The Speaker: That's gone.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You didn't respect his ruling or you would have given unanimous consent.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Hamilton Centre. You can stand and speak to it during debate, but if you're asking about my ruling or querying my ruling or debating it, it's not on the table.

Hon David Johnson: I wasn't going to debate that. I was just going to suggest a course of action as a result. It might be helpful for the three parties to get together and the House leaders to discuss this, because in this case I think the announcement had formerly been made and the information was being conveyed. I think it might be helpful for the three House leaders to get together and --

The Speaker: Government House leader, I appreciate the fact that you may have formally announced this etc, but I think it's clear, if you want re-read what I spoke to, it was speaking about the announcement, about the fact that the parliamentary assistant to the minister was making that announcement in the House, talking about that specific announcement.

It really goes beyond when or where or how the announcement was made. It's a practice in this House that we've stood by for a great many years. It's fairly clear that it was completely out of order. If you, as the House leader, want to get together with the other two and work out some arrangement, wonderful. As far as Kingston and The Islands --

Hon David Johnson: As far as Kingston and The Islands is concerned, he does --

Mr Gerretsen: I assume he's talking about the member.

Hon David Johnson: The member, yes. My good friend and colleague the member for Kingston and The Islands raises a point which is fairly specific in the procedures. However, I think we all know in this House that it's a rule that's been observed more in the breach than in the observance.

Certainly the House leaders do get together every Thursday morning and attempt to work out the calendar for the House the subsequent week. Unfortunately, I was out of town last Thursday and indicated to the two House leaders that I would not be able to attend. As a result, and in addition to that, because this is the final week of the session, we think at this point in time, things are a little bit up in the air. But I have indicated to the other two House leaders that at this point in time our intention is to go back to debate on the standing order changes this afternoon.

I would say that in terms of his point of order, clearly the procedure, the -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- way this has been dealt with in the past is that this has not been a mandatory requirement for the House leader.

The Speaker: I will say -- further? Quickly, if that's okay.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Prompted somewhat by the argument of the government House leader, who has suggested that one of the standing rules of this House is observed more in the breach than in the recognition of that order, it is nevertheless a rule of the House. This argument comes from a minister who is carrying through proposed rule changes which are significantly going to change the orders and the way in which debate is carried out and to limit that debate.

The fact that he is saying that he has already acted to limit the debate by not providing sufficient notice of the orders of the day can hardly be an excuse for not observing them while they are still, even if it's just for the next few hours, in place. I believe that one of the Speaker's obligations -- and I think it is borne out in repeated decisions made under any parliamentary rules that are observed -- is the obligation of the Speaker to observe the rules of the day, the rules of the House that are in place at this period of time.

There is no question that due notice has to be given of the business to be conducted. It is now some 15 minutes before debate is to resume on the orders of the afternoon. It is only in the last 30 seconds that the government House leader has informed those of us in the opposition what issue we are going to be debating 15 minutes from now. Surely that is not due process and is not in accordance with the rules set out.

The Speaker: Let me just say quickly that the rule as read by the member for Kingston and The Islands is read accurately. It says "shall." To be fair to the government House leader, this rule has not been followed to the letter throughout the last number of administrations. It has been allowed to fall by the wayside, with the greatest of respect in this House for all parties.

I understand it's stated in here, but it's very difficult because of practice that has been allowed by previous Speakers not to be lived up to to the letter of the law. Having said that, there also is not a whole bunch in here, as far as repercussions are concerned, that the Speaker can impose other than to direct the government House leader to do it. I would ask the government House leader in future if he would kindly provide the House with the business for the week next week. Beyond that, that is really all I need say on the subject.

PETITIONS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of Ontario are getting increasingly furious about the Harris plan to kill debate in the Legislature. Once again we've been suddenly told we're discussing rule changes again today. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by members of the London and District Labour Council forwarded to me by Mario Cordeiro, who is the chairperson of the occupational health and safety committee for their labour council. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas this government's contribution to prevention services made through the WCB has been reduced from $62 million to $47 million, with no explanation as to where this money has gone; and

"Whereas the prevention services that the Ministry of Labour once provided are being offloaded to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and other safety associations, thereby increasing the demand for the prevention services provided by the centre; and

"Whereas the government has gutted the certification training standards for health and safety committee members and is replacing them with minimalist performance standards which, in combination with funding cuts, have resulted in a 40% reduction in the staff of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre is facing further cuts of $2.3 million to finance the establishment of several new employer safety associations, thereby duplicating administrative costs and services;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the gutting of the funding of prevention services provided by the Workers' Health and Safety Centre.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that the moneys taken from the health and safety prevention services of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the other safety associations be returned to them."

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

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have about 400 names on petitions that continue to be distributed by two farm women living in my riding, Mrs Helen Snowden of Nanticoke and Mrs Marlene Phibbs of Hagersville. The title is "Stand Up for Rural Health Care."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is urgent concern about the future of community hospitals located in Dunnville, Hagersville, Simcoe and Tillsonburg; and

"Whereas distance, weather and doctor shortages are serious barriers to people in rural areas accessing emergency services and health care; and

"Whereas local communities have worked for years to establish, maintain, improve and modernize hospital, physician and other health services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to adopt a rural health policy to deal with these problems and to protect the health care rights of rural communities; and that hospital boards, district health councils, and the Health Services Restructuring Commission and the government of Ontario adhere to this rural policy."

I am in agreement with this petition and therefore affix my signature to it.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to protect the right to hunt black bear in Ontario. This is to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the bear population in Ontario is not threatened in any way by wildlife management programs such as the spring bear hunt; and

"Whereas the Ontario black bear population is one of the largest in North America due to effective wildlife management, including hunting; and

"Whereas black bears are just one of the many species of game animals that Ontario residents have the right to hunt during the spring and fall; and

"Whereas the combined total economic impact of bear, moose and deer hunting accounts for more than $302 million, $30.1 million of which can be attributed to the bear hunt; and

"Whereas the Ontario Game and Fish Act provides laws which protect the black bear resource; and

"Whereas the rights of Ontario residents who enjoy recreational outdoor activities such as hunting and sport fishing are being threatened by the misleading campaigns of animal rights activists;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to uphold the fish and game act and protect and preserve the rights therein."

I have affixed my signature to it. Thank you.

RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition demandant à Mike Harris de ne pas éliminer les débats à l'Assemblée législative.

«Attendu que la population de l'Ontario veut des discussions rigoureuses sur les projets de loi portant sur les politiques publiques tant que les soins de santé, l'éducation et les soins aux personnes âgées ; et

«Attendu que bon nombre d'Ontariens et d'Ontariennes croient que le gouvernement Harris agit trop vite, trop rapidement, que sa disposition concernant la qualité des soins de santé et la qualité de l'éducation causent des ravages, et qu'elles causent du tort aux personnes âgées ; et

«Attendu que le gouvernement Harris veut maintenant changer le Règlement de l'Assemblée législative pour lui permettre de faire adopter plus rapidement ses projets de loi et moins rendre compte à la population et aux médias par l'intermédiaire d'activités telles que la période des questions ; et

«Attendu que Mike Harris et Ernie Eves, alors qu'ils étaient dans l'opposition, défendaient les droits de l'opposition et qu'ils ont utilisé le Règlement à leur avantage lorsqu'ils croyaient que cela était leur droit de ralentir l'adoption des projets de loi controversés ; et

«Attendu que le gouvernement de Mike Harris désire réduire la période de temps allouée aux députés pour débattre des questions importantes au feuilleton ; et

«Attendu que le gouvernement de Mike Harris, par ses changements proposés au Règlement, tente de réduire le rôle des députés élus à l'Assemblée législative qui doivent rendre compte aux personnes qui les ont élus, et que ces changements concentrent les pouvoirs dans les mains des personnes non élues au sein du bureau du premier ministre ;

«Nous, soussignés, demandons à Mike Harris de rejeter ses propositions draconiennes de changements au Règlement et de remettre en vigueur les règles qui encouragent un délai rigoureux sur les questions litigieuses et qui forcent le gouvernement à rendre compte à la population de l'Ontario.»

J'y ajoute ma signature. Merci.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees in the Ottawa area and forwarded to me by their eastern Ontario area office. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Labour has begun a process to fundamentally alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations with the release of the discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act; and

"Whereas these changes threaten to deregulate the health and safety protection for workers and reduce or eliminate the rights of workers and joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the ministry intentionally organized meetings in a manner which allowed only marginal opportunity for workers to discuss with the ministry the issues raised in the discussion paper; and

"Whereas workers deserve a full opportunity to be heard regarding the proposals that threaten the legislated provisions that provide them with protection from workplace injury, illness and death;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose the deregulation of workplace health and safety and any erosion of the protection provided workers under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

"Further we, the undersigned, demand that province-wide public hearings be held once any amendments to the act are introduced."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition signed by over 50 constituents of mine to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

I've signed this so that it can be put to this Assembly.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition, I believe from the Citizens for Local Democracy, reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by hundreds of auto workers from the Canadian Auto Workers union and forwarded to me by their national president, Buzz Hargrove. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I wish they were doing that with the WCB as they'd promised, and I add my name to theirs.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I probably have one of the most important petitions we've heard here over the last two years. It's addressed to the Harris Reform government's plan to kill debate in the Legislature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to it as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition signed by literally hundreds, close to 1,000, people from the community of Timmins. It deals with the whole question of cuts to the long-term-care system, specifically homes for the aged. It reads:

"Sick people are not asking to be sick. People at nursing homes are in need of special care. There are many disadvantages with the cuts of nursing staff that will be made in the future. The disabled people will end up suffering more because they will not be getting the care they should have. Lack of proper care could lead to depression in some patients.

"At this moment, nurses have difficulty to keep up with their duties because there are so many sick patients in nursing homes. With the proposed cuts, the nurses who will be left working will get exhausted from rushing too much, which could lead to accidents."

It goes on to state their opposition to the cuts by the government to the long-term-care system, and I affix my signature to that petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of amendments to the standing orders.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Speaker: As many members will know, the member for Cochrane North had the floor when we last debated this motion. Over the weekend he had a medical emergency. I understand he is in the hospital this afternoon and will not be able to be present to continue his remarks. I would ask unanimous consent of the House that the member for Cochrane North be able to resume his remarks when he returns to the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have unanimous consent to allow the member for Cochrane North to resume his remarks when he gets back to the assembly? Agreed.

Further debate? The member for -- the minister --

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): The member for Mississauga West. Maybe you'll have a chance to get that right one of these days.

The Speaker: Sorry.

Hon Mr Sampson: I have some amendments to move on the standing orders that are before us.

I move that the motion to amend the standing orders be amended as follows:

That the proposed clause 9(

c) be amended by adding, immediately following the first sentence, the sentence "Such a motion requires notice, and must appear on the Orders and Notices paper by the first sessional day of the first week to which the motion applies."

That the proposed clause 9(

c) be further amended by adding immediately following the words "according to the terms of the motion" in the sixth line, the words "but no government bill shall be called on more than one sessional day during a single calendar day without unanimous consent."

That the proposed clause 16(

b) be struck out.

That the proposed clause 25(

a) be amended by striking out the words "but only during the first five hours of debate."

That the proposed clause 28(

h) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

h) Except where a standing order or other order fixes the time of the vote, a vote may be deferred at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House. The Speaker shall then defer the taking of the vote to the next sessional day during the routine proceeding `Deferred votes' at which time the bells shall be rung for five minutes."

That the number "45" in the first line of proposed clause 36(

h) be replaced with the number "24".

That the entire amendment to standing order 38 be struck out and the following substituted:

"That standing order 38 be amended by the addition of the following clause: `(

g) No introduction of a single bill shall last more than five minutes.'"

That the time "5:45" in the first line of proposed clause 42(

g) be replaced with the time "6."

That the number "15" in the third line of proposed clause 42(

g) be replaced with the number "5."

That the time "5:45" in the second line of proposed clause 43(

b) be replaced with the time "6."

That the time "5:45" in the first line of proposed clause 46(

b) be replaced with the time "6."

That the number "15" in the fourth line of proposed clause 46(

b) be replaced with the number "5."

That the following clause be added immediately following the proposed clause 46(c):

"(

d) A time allocation motion may not be moved on the same calendar day that any of the bills that are subject of the motion have been called as a government order."

That the number "three" in the first line of clause proposed to be added to standing order 57 be replaced with the number "four."

That the number "45" in the first line of proposed clause 97(

d) be replaced with the number "24."

That the number "four" in proposed clause 97(

g) be replaced with the number "10."

That the words "take effect on the first day after August 1, 1997" in the fourth last paragraph of the motion be replaced with the words "take effect on the third sessional day after August 1, 1997."

That the date "June 12, 1997" in the second line of the second last paragraph of the motion be replaced with the date "June 23, 1997."

The Speaker: Mr Sampson moves that the motion to amend the standing orders be amended as follows:

That the proposed clause 9(

c) be amended by adding, immediately following the first sentence, the sentence "Such a motion requires notice, and must appear on the Orders and Notices paper by the first sessional day of the first week to which the motion applies."

That the proposed clause 9(

c) be further amended by adding, immediately following the words "according to the terms of the motion" in the sixth line, the words "but no government bill shall be called on more than one sessional day during a single calendar day without unanimous consent."

That the proposed clause 16(

b) be struck out.

That the proposed clause 25(

a) be amended by striking out the words "but only during the first five hours of debate."

That the proposed clause 28(

h) be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

h) Except where a standing order or other order fixes the time of the vote, a vote may be deferred at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House. The Speaker shall then defer the taking of the vote to the next sessional day during the routine proceedings `Deferred Votes' at which time the bells shall be rung for five minutes."

That the number "45" in the first line of the proposed clause 36(

h) be replaced with the number "24."

That the entire amendment to standing order 38 be struck out and the following substituted:

"That standing order 38 be amended by the addition of the following clause:

"(

g) No introduction of a single bill shall last more than five minutes."

That the time "5:45" in the first line of proposed clause 42(

g) be replaced with the time "6."

That the number "15" in the third line of proposed clause 42(

g) be replaced with the number "5."

That the time "5:45" in the second line of proposed clause 43(

b) be replaced with the time "6."

That the time "5:45" in the first line of proposed clause 46(

b) be replaced with the time "6."

That the number "15" in the fourth line of proposed clause 46(

b) be replaced with the number "5."

That the following clause be added immediately following the proposed clause 46(c):

"(

d) A time allocation motion may not be moved on the same calendar day that any of the bills that are the subject of the motion have been called as a government order."

That the number "three" in the first line of clause proposed to be added to standing order 57 be replaced with the number "four."

That the number "45" in the first line of proposed clause 97(

d) be replaced with the number "24."

That the number "four" in proposed clause 97(

g) be replaced with the number "10."

That the words "take effect on the first day after August 1, 1997" in the fourth last paragraph of the motion be replaced with the words "take effect on the third sessional day after August 1, 1997."

That the date "June 12, 1997" in the second line of the second last paragraph of the motion be replaced with the date "June 23, 1997."

Further debate?

Hon Mr Sampson: In moving these amendments, I want to make it clear up front that these amendments are a result of what I believe are continuing and fruitful discussions that have occurred between House leaders in this House, who have tried, as we have suggested, to provide their input to us on how we can better the motion ahead of us.

I also understand, and you can probably guess from the comments still coming from the other side of the House, that the House leaders have not yet quite reached an agreement on the full context and the full breadth of this motion before us. But I think it's important to understand that discussions have taken place, although I have not been at those meetings, and that these discussions, I believe, have resulted in amendments that are changes to the standing orders changes that were brought forward to this House last week.

Let me speak briefly to what these amendments will mean and how they change the motion before us. Firstly, notice will be required now, under these amendments, for all evening sittings. This notice will be such that it has to be tabled before the week of the extended sittings. I think that's a significant amendment, to have changed the existing motion, which of course did not have the requirement for the motion. We have now said that there should be an appropriate notice period and have set that notice period.

Secondly -- and even today we've heard some comments from the other side of the House in question period and in the petitions as I sat and listened carefully to them -- no government bill will be called more than once on the same calendar day. I think there were at least two petitions brought forward to this House today saying that there is some concern about the same bill being called on the same calendar day. We've listened and we've changed that proposed standing order amendment with this particular amendment, which says that no government bill can be called more than once on the same calendar day.

I must say, in looking at the rule that will allow us to extend sittings in the House into the evening hours, there is some concern from the members on the back benches I have talked to, frankly on both sides of the House, that private bills being brought into this House do indeed get the hearing at first reading, private members' hour does allow the chance for the House to debate a particular private member's bill on second reading, but there doesn't seem to be a time, especially where there's a government with a very busy government agenda, for the House to appropriately address private bills that are brought forward by members who are trying to represent a particular interest they hold in their community or as it relates to this House in general.

There doesn't appear to be a time that's appropriately allocated for private members' bills to be dealt with in the third and final reading stage.

I am hopeful that our proposal to extend the sittings of this House into the evening hours will allow for the scheduling of the third reading hearing and perhaps passage of the very important private members' bills that I think are a very key part of what happens in this House.

I am a relatively new member in this House and over the two years I've been here it has become quite apparent that private members' business is one of the very important areas for private members to deal with the issues they find important. I would welcome any changes in the standing orders that would accommodate those issues being brought forward and dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

As it relates to the amendment for no government bills being called more than once in the same calendar day, I think it's important -- and one has to sit down and work back the number of days that are available for the passage of a government bill -- that this particular amendment I have put forward today will ensure that bills will not be passed any sooner than is the case today under the current rules that are governing the operation of this House. I believe that responds to the concerns that have been raised by members opposite in regard to the timely enactment of government bills.

The amendments I have brought forward and tabled today will also reinstate what we've called around here the 10-minute hits, the member responses, following five hours of debate. The earlier amendments to the standing orders had taken that away after five hours; we're reinstating that.

Division on the introduction of first reading will be reinstated. Our amendments that had been tabled earlier did not allow for that. That of course now is the case; we've reinstated that.

Divisions relating to the want of confidence motions, opposition days and time allocation motions shall be moved from 5:45 to 6 o'clock.

A time allocation motion may not be moved on the same calendar day that any bills that are the subject of the motion have been debated. Of course this relates to the point I raised a few minutes ago. It will mean, as it relates to the time that could elapse between the introduction of a bill and the passage of the bill, the rules that we have, as amended and brought forward today, will not change or shorten that particular period of time.

Government responses to order paper questions and petitions will be much quicker than is the case federally. Response to petitions will be made from 45 days to 24 days, which is a lot quicker than the current situation in the federal House. Responses to order paper questions will be reduced from 45 days to 24 days. That effectively means that within 24 days, ministers and ministries will be required to respond to order paper questions. As it relates to order paper questions, members will be able to table 10 of these at any one time, as opposed to the four which we had suggested earlier.

In closing, and I think it's appropriate to do so to pass the debate time to the opposition to deal with these amendments, I still believe that these amendments, inclusive of the ones I've brought forward today, strike a good balance between the rights of members to participate in a free and open and thorough debate on the issues and the legislation that face this House and the authority and the responsibility that's given government to deal with the issues in a timely manner.

I don't have the history to speak to in this House that some of the other members do, which I suppose is a point of frustration in many cases for both sides of the House, but I think it's important that members have their chance to debate thoroughly in this House issues that come before this House, whether they be private members' issues or government issues.

I think it's important also for the government to be able to deal with the responsibility of governing in a timely manner, which means the ability to be able to move forward on legislation that in many cases is controversial and in many cases has fair representations on both sides of the issues but where debate and the procedures of this House shouldn't delay, I would say, the responsibility of government to be able to move forward on the agenda on which it has been elected to do so.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate. The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Madam Speaker, although I'm not thanking you for the opportunity to speak on this, because it should not be before the House this afternoon.

Once again, the government has chosen a rather strange day to be dealing with this. Members of this House and the public will remember that the first time we heard anything about this was of course the situation where we were in a federal election. On the day of a federal election we had the government coming in through the auspices of the member for Nepean with changes that would be made in terms of the rules that govern the Ontario Legislature.

I was very concerned at that time that the government was trying to hide its real intentions, that it was specifically choosing a day that was not a day when there would be a lot of attention given to this issue, and when the government did so, that it must have been ashamed of what it was doing. It had a good reason to be ashamed, because what it's trying to do is change the rules of this House so the government can bulldoze its controversial and radical legislation through very quickly, with a minimum of public scrutiny and with a minimum of question periods and accountability to go with it.

The public should know, make no mistake about it, that's the intention of this government. The tinkering with the original proposals really changes very little in regard to the intent of the government.

The first day they brought it in, the federal election was on. They had a press conference in the morning, when they knew nobody would be watching. As I've said on many occasions, you can judge a government best by what it does when it thinks nobody is watching it, and it thought nobody was watching. Then, when it actually introduced these for debate into the House, it was late on a Thursday afternoon, the last afternoon that the House sits. It was about five minutes to 5 that they dropped the bombshell on the table in front of us, the bombshell being the actual rule changes that they were going to try to implement.

Then today we have an event on which is a sad event, and that is the funeral of Larry Grossman, a beloved member of this Legislature and one who was a friend to many of us. Interestingly enough, when there's a lot of interest concentrated on that event, as there should be, paying tribute to Mr Grossman for his many years of service, lo and behold, the government decides it's going to drop this this afternoon.

I mentioned this to one of the more moderate government members and he said -- and I won't identify the person because I don't want to embarrass him -- "No, we wouldn't do this." That member, who knows who he is when I was talking to him, should be watching the television set. That's exactly what they did. They dropped again this issue of rule changes on an afternoon when people justifiably, in my view, are thinking of something else, and that is a tribute and a send-off, if you will, to our good friend Larry Grossman, who tragically passed away just a couple of days ago.

What this is all about is making the trains run on time. There are some members of the government who have not served in this place before who do not like the pace at which it moves. This is not unique to this government. I'm sure with all governments, when the members are newly elected, they ask the other members why the opposition takes more time than they believe is necessary to deal with legislation. They do so because that's how you alert the public to the issues of the day: by taking the necessary time.

I remember a phoney letter which was sent to the leader of the official opposition in which one member tried to say, "The members of the opposition don't want to work all these days." What I'm saying to the members of the government is, if you wish to sit more days of the year, we're happy to sit more days of the year. In fact, this government has decided it would sit almost continuously since January 13, with a couple of breaks, through to the end of June. That's fine with me, that's fine with the opposition. Why is that fine?

Because the government can deal with its legislation, but every day that it deals with legislation -- in other words, every day that counts for a day in the legislative calendar -- has with it a question period, and that's the accountability that goes with it.

It's obvious that the people in the Premier's office don't like that. They don't want the accountability. The Cadillac is getting scratched as it drives by. They want the Cadillac to zip by unscathed, without the necessary analysis, detailed in many cases, and criticism.

Ultimately, if the government wins in the court of public opinion, that's what we all accept as elected representatives. But what this government wants to do, through the people in the back rooms of the Premier's office, is shove through its legislative agenda just as quickly as possible and with as little accountability as possible. Virtually all of these rule changes are geared to do that. People who know the rules of this House, people who have observed it in years gone by, not just members, look at these rule changes and tell you that's exactly what it's all about.

When you want to reduce the amount of time that members have to speak on legislation, on bills, that's exactly what you're doing, because very often the bills are detailed, very often they must be taken in context with other legislative action that the government is undertaking. In this case, of course, the government wants to rush that through in a minimum amount of time.

It also doesn't want to give information out in a timely fashion, so it sets some ridiculously long period of time for replying to what we call order paper questions from any member of the House who is not a member of the cabinet. But most particularly the opposition uses the order paper questions to obtain specific information, legitimate information that should be available to anyone in the public. What does this government do? It wants to limit the number of questions an individual can place on the order paper and to increase the number of days in which a reply must be forthcoming. If you think that's democratic, it is not.

What the government has done this afternoon is said, "You didn't like the arsenic, so here is some hemlock to drink," because that's what it's all about. This is tinkering. Is it better than what existed before? Some might say it is, but it is certainly far from what I consider to be an important opportunity for analysis and debate in this House. Even the government and certainly the people of this province benefit by this additional debate and discussion.

There are times when the government must be stopped in its tracks, even momentarily, to reassess its position, to reconsider its position. But no, the backroom boys in the Premier's office are not satisfied with that. They want to shove everything through and forget about what anybody else has to say. They want to have their own members up, clapping for the government legislation, spinning the government line, when I believe the most important things that are said by government members are within the confines of the government caucus room where they can tell them what they really think instead of simply reading the speeches that their backroom boys provide for government members to read.

I think Ernie Eves was right. I asked a question of him the other day, and it wasn't very confrontational, because I have a lot of respect for him as a parliamentarian and as a person knowledgeable of the rules of this House. This is what Ernie Eves had to say on June 22, 1992, when a previous government was proposing rule changes for the House. I think these words are particularly important and should be considered by all government members:

"I think one has to understand that the only way opposition -- not just opposition members but any public opposition to any proposed piece of legislation -- can be effectively dealt with or talked about under our system of government, under the parliamentary system of government, is through the opposition parties' ability to debate, and yes, on occasion even stall or slow down progress