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

June 3, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L198 - Tue 3 Jun 1997 / Mar 3 Jun 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

MONTFORT HOSPITAL

WELLESLEY HOSPITAL

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SENIORS' MONTH

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIORS' MONTH

LABOUR LEGISLATION

SENIORS' MONTH

LABOUR LEGISLATION

THOMAS COFFIN

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

LABOUR LEGISLATION

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED STUDENTS

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

CARDIAC SURGERY

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT

PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

MOTIONS

OPPOSITION DAY

PETITIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

HAEMODIALYSIS

CLASS SIZE

TAX REDUCTION

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LONG-TERM CARE

ADULT EDUCATION

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BUSES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Last night at 12:01 pickets went up at Inco in Sudbury for the first time in 15 years. I want to take this opportunity to urge and indeed to plead with Inco management and union representatives to return to the bargaining table and to bargain in good faith to bring a quick resolution to this unfortunate situation as soon as possible.

I know the people of Sudbury are very concerned for the families of those affected by this strike and wish for an early settlement to the current contract impasse with Inco. I cannot stress enough the importance of all parties working together, quickly, diligently and faithfully working with each other, to bring an end to this. The community of Sudbury, the region of Sudbury, its economy and its people cannot sustain a loss of a $5-million payroll per week. Our economy just isn't that strong.

I plead with both parties: Please return to the bargaining table. Please work with each other. The region of Sudbury needs your involvement and cooperation to return Sudbury and Inco to a normal operation.

HUNGER AND HOMELESSNESS

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): At noon today in Hamilton the Hike to End Hunger and Homelessness was kicked off as walkers commenced their two-week protest walk, protesting the growing levels of poverty among children, among families, among retirees and other seniors in Mike Harris's Ontario; growing numbers of homeless representing a complete cross-section of our communities.

Leaving Hamilton at noon, they proceeded to Ancaster. They're going to proceed on to Brantford, Cambridge, Kitchener-Waterloo, Guelph, Acton, Georgetown, Brampton and Etobicoke.

I especially appreciate what Mandy Hiscocks from Guelph had to say, and that is, "Poverty has a human face and it's not some schemer trying to rip off the system, it's someone next door who struggles to get by because they can't find a decent job, because they don't have affordable day care, because the bank presidents who take home $75,000 a week feels it's not in their best interest to share the resources of this province."

The walk is specifically focussing on the cutbacks of this Harris government along with their policies, these same Harris policies that have led to massive corporate profits -- richer and richer than ever, in the face of ongoing increases in poverty, higher and higher levels of unemployment in Harris's Ontario and lower and lower wages.

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of an outstanding accomplishment by Pat O'Connell, a constituent of mine. As you know, the month of June has been dedicated to the celebration of seniors and their contributions to this province. In recognition of the important role of seniors interacting with younger Ontarians, the first week of Seniors' Month will focus on intergenerational activities.

Pat O'Connell is one of 15 individuals from across the province who have been recognized for their outstanding contributions to intergenerational activities.

Pat is an intergenerational program coordinator for Community Care Belleville, an agency providing community-based services to seniors. Over the past 15 years Pat has helped to build a strong relationship between her agency and the separate and public school boards in the Belleville and Trenton area. Through this relationship, Pat has developed intergenerational programs in both elementary and secondary schools.

This government recognizes and appreciates the sacrifice and contributions made by seniors to build a better province for us all. Again, I want to congratulate Ms O'Connell on her achievement and ask all members to join me in welcoming her to the Legislature.

MONTFORT HOSPITAL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Yesterday I asked the Minister of Health if he would step in to save the Montfort Hospital in my riding if he believed it would be in the public interest to do so. In response to my question he stated that "the Minister of Health cannot contravene or override a directive from the Health Services Restructuring Commission."

However much the minister may wish to divorce himself from the decisions of the commission, he remains ultimately responsible for those decisions. As the Public Hospitals Act clearly states, "The minister may amend or revoke a direction...where the minister considers it in the public interest."

It may be that someone in his own cabinet let the cat out of the bag on this issue recently. Just a few days ago, the minister responsible for francophone affairs said, "If the commission does not reverse its decision, Mr Harris and Jim Wilson, the Minister of Health, may intervene." It is time for the minister to admit to his responsibility.

WELLESLEY HOSPITAL

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Ontarians are becoming increasingly concerned about this government's plans to shut down community hospitals across this province. Today I'm going to speak up for the Wellesley Hospital, on behalf of the many constituents in my riding of Riverdale who use the many services provided by the Wellesley.

Wellesley Hospital provides health care for some very specific communities whose health would be endangered by losing it. It's the major health care provider for Toronto's inner-city neighbourhoods, for many homeless people, and for the lesbian and gay community. Wellesley was an early leader in working with those groups to come up with a community-oriented treatment approach for people living with AIDS and HIV.

Since Mike Harris announced his plan to close Wellesley, the communities served by Wellesley have organized to protect their services. Their Staying Alive campaign is drawing very broad support, and I would urge all people who care about keeping the special and unique community services that are provided by the hospital to get involved and make your views known.

Next Tuesday, June 10, at l:30 at University College, the Wellesley is holding an urban health policy forum that I encourage all members to attend, and in particular the member for St George-St David in whose riding this hospital is.

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I rise today on behalf of my colleague the member for Durham Centre to bring to the attention of my colleagues a tremendous contribution made by a constituent of his, Shana Pankratz. A teacher with the Durham Board of Education, Ms Pankratz, along with many others, is being recognized by the Honourable Cam Jackson, Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for seniors issues, for her outstanding contribution to intergenerational activities.

As you know, as part of Seniors' Month, June 2 to June 8 is the Intergenerational Week in Ontario. This is a time to recognize the efforts of many in our communities who help bring seniors and younger people together, fostering a more active, integrated community.

One of the greatest problems facing today's seniors is isolation or loneliness. Bringing the generations together benefits all. I am sure my colleagues will join me in saluting the efforts of Shana Pankratz and the many like her across this province who are making a difference.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): As Mike Harris's hand-picked wrecking crew, otherwise known as the Health Services Restructuring Commission, is going to be steamrolling into Hamilton tomorrow morning, I want to remind the Minister of Health and this government of some shocking statistics that were provided by Hamilton-area hospitals.

Over the past 12 months, on 75 occasions all four emergency departments in all four Hamilton hospitals were on critical bypass. That means that once every five days all four emergency departments were closed, inaccessible to the public. Over the past 12 months, on 132 occasions three out of the four Hamilton hospitals were on critical bypass. When you add that to the fact that on 153 occasions two or more were closed, that means that over the past 12 months there were 360 times that at least two of the Hamilton emergency departments were at full capacity, unable to take people in.

This is before Mike Harris's wrecking crew comes into Hamilton; this is before your destruction commission comes in and recommends greater crisis and greatest chaos for the city of Hamilton.

I urge this government, this minister, to take a look at these sobering numbers, take a look at what is really a shocking, unacceptable situation where people cannot access emergency departments, and call off the dogs, call off this crew before they come into Hamilton tomorrow and create greater crisis for us.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): June is Seniors' Month and it is a good time for all of us to reflect on the contribution that seniors have made to our society. Seniors are an important and integral part of our lives, and because they are important it is essential that this month and every month we think about ensuring their quality of life.

In the London area over 700 organizations assist seniors in one way or another. Despite this, as I walked around the ridings of London during the recent weeks, I found that many seniors in my riding continue to live in poverty. The Thames Valley District Health Council report, which was based on the 1991 census, indicates that at least 3,800 seniors live in poverty in the city of London. That number would be much higher now as the ongoing effects of the very severe recession of the early 1990s and the cutbacks of service dollars by this government affect seniors every day.

It is important when we have a time like Seniors' Month that we not get carried away with rhetoric, that we understand the reality of what is going on for seniors in our own communities. All of us as members have in our communities seniors who need assistance and need it now, and it is our job as representatives of those seniors to speak out on their behalf in this place.

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I rise this afternoon to honour Judy Morrow, a public health nurse with the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound health unit, who was recognized earlier today by Minister Jackson as an individual who has made a significant contribution to intergenerational activities in Ontario.

According to Judy, her appreciation for all that seniors have to offer began at the early age of four, by which time she had adopted four additional grandmothers with whom to spend her time.

Judy received her registered nurse designation at St Boniface General Hospital school of nursing in Manitoba and completed her bachelor of nursing at the University of Manitoba. Through her employment as a public health nurse with the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound health unit, Judy became involved with the seniors' program at the same time that the Knitting Generations Together project was launched.

Together with several of her colleagues, Judy has implemented one of the most successful Knitting Generations Together programs in the province. Sixty seniors, 575 students from 14 schools and 202 volunteers have become involved in an exciting partnership called HUGS, which stands for Helping Unites Great and Small.

Judy and her colleagues believe that HUGS helps to abolish stereotypes between young people and seniors, encourages cross-generational friendships and helps both groups learn to understand each other.

I ask you to join me in congratulating Judy, who is in the gallery today with her husband, John, for her hard work and for the joy that she has brought to the lives of so many others.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIORS' MONTH

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): On behalf of all members of the Ontario Legislature and the citizens of our province, it is a great honour to acknowledge Ontario's 1.4 million senior citizens as June is Seniors' Month.

It's a time to celebrate and recognize the abundant contributions that seniors have made and continue to make to life in Ontario; it's a time to reflect on the policies and priorities which are implemented on behalf of seniors and the challenges we face as a province as our society ages; and it's a time to bring greater awareness to the issues that affect seniors in their daily lives.

This year we have partnered with United Generations Ontario and have designated week 1 of Seniors' Month as Intergenerational Week. Today we welcome 15 outstanding Ontario citizens who received awards for the intergenerational program this morning. They are seated in the east gallery this afternoon.

Earlier today, a choir made up of 60 seniors and school children treated us to a wonderful performance at the official launch of Seniors' Month. It's just one example of how every generation learns from those who came before them, which happens to be the theme for Seniors' Month this year: Following in their Footsteps.

In week 2, Caregivers Week, we have worked closely with the Caregivers' Association of Ontario to help bring greater understanding to the many challenges facing the family caregiver.

In week 3 of Seniors' Month, we have partnered with the Elder Abuse Network to bring greater awareness to the issue of the physical, emotional and financial abuse of some of our seniors.

In week 4, we will recognize 20 outstanding seniors from every corner of our province at the annual Senior Achievement Awards.

It's through a lifetime of the hard work and sacrifice of Ontario's 1.4 million seniors that we have such a strong and vibrant province today. Their contributions are enormous. They built our roads, they taught in our schools, they produced the food on our tables, and during the Depression they showed us thrift, sharing and priority-setting, and many served in two world wars to save our freedom. Seniors continue to this day to make significant contributions as members of boards and commissions, as volunteers and as community leaders. To each and every senior in our province, we say a collective thank you.

In Ontario we have a Premier and a government who understand the challenges that come with a growing aging society and are planning not just for the next few years but for the next 30 years and beyond.

We have added 460 new drugs to the Ontario drug benefit plan and continue to maintain the lowest-cost publicly funded drug program for seniors in all of North America. We introduced free pneumonia immunization for every senior in this province, the most comprehensive vaccination program on the continent. We have reinvested an additional $170 million into community-based health care for seniors and persons with disabilities. After more than a decade of studies, this government has been the one to deliver one-window access to long-term care for seniors with the introduction this spring of community care access centres.

I pledge on behalf of our government that we will continue to modernize and strengthen the health care system, continue to build safer, more tolerant communities and continue to involve seniors in the decisions that affect their lives.

I want to thank the corporate partners for Seniors' Month: Bell Telephone, Today's Seniors, the Canadian Snowbird Association, the Ontario Residential Care Association and Shoppers Drug Mart. With their support, the Seniors' Month poster and all the information kits across the province were produced at no cost to Ontario taxpayers.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the presence today in the gallery of representatives of many organizations for seniors across the province who have participated in the planning for Seniors' Month. Please join me in saluting the seniors of Ontario and celebrating the beginning of Seniors' Month. Especially, I want to recognize in the Speaker's gallery Gordie Tapp, who is this year's honorary chairman for Seniors' Month in Ontario, and his lovely wife, Helen.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): This afternoon I will be introducing the Public Sector Transition Stability Act,

an act to facilitate a fair and orderly transition to improved public services in hospitals, schools and municipalities across Ontario.

Over the coming months, public sector organizations will be restructuring in order to deliver more efficient, effective and affordable services to Ontarians. We want to ensure that as these changes take place, employees are treated fairly and outstanding labour relations issues are resolved in an expeditious and timely manner.

Our government believes that employers, employees and unions are in the best position to find solutions to their unique labour relations issues. Therefore, the workplace parties will continue to have the opportunity to negotiate collective agreements that are most appropriate to their particular circumstances. However, if they are not able to resolve some of the complex issues, we realize that a legal and institutional framework is needed to ensure that during this time of public sector restructuring, everyone is treated fairly and services continue to be provided to the taxpayers.

To establish this framework, we are introducing this bill, which contains two new acts for the consideration of the Legislature. The first, the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, will establish a temporary Labour Relations Transition Commission to deal with the high volume of complex labour relations issues that will emerge as the result of school boards, hospitals and municipalities amalgamating and merging.

For example, if employers and unions cannot negotiate a solution to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, the transition commission will be able to do so. If one union does not represent a substantial majority of employees, or if no agreement is reached by the unions to determine which union will represent employees when two or more unionized workforces come together, the transition commission will be able to do so. In most cases, the determination will be by secret ballot to ensure that the wishes of the affected employees are respected.

The transition commission will also ensure that for seniority purposes, equal recognition is given to the years of service of unionized and non-unionized employees.

I would like to point out that our legislation will not eliminate successor rights. As well, contracting out will continue to be an issue for negotiations between the parties.

We have paid careful attention to the needs and concerns of the workplace parties and we have endeavoured to ensure that they continue to work cooperatively to resolve their own unique issues through collective bargaining. I will be asking the parties in the construction industry to provide advice on the application of this act to construction trade unions with construction bargaining rights in the broader public sector.

The second act we are introducing, the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, will permanently reform arbitration in the fire, police and hospital sectors, where strikes and lockouts are not permitted.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Clear the galleries.

Minister of Labour.

Hon Mrs Witmer: A permanent dispute resolution commission will be created to promote negotiated settlements and resolve disputes, should negotiations between the parties fail in these sectors. This new process will address concerns that have been expressed for many years and will ensure that the system is more directly accountable to the taxpayer.

This dispute resolution commission will also be used temporarily to administer a binding dispute resolution process during a first contract negotiation following an amalgamation or merger in the broader public sector. This is a temporary power and it can only be exercised at the request of either party. I wish to emphasize that this option will only be available for the negotiation of the first post-amalgamation collective agreement.

By creating greater incentives for the parties to settle disputes themselves, this new process will protect taxpayers against unnecessary disruptions of public services through strikes or lockouts arising out of the negotiations of first contracts after an amalgamation or merger in the broader public sector during this transitional period.

At this time I would like to mention two other aspects of this legislation. In order to facilitate restructuring and to address some other concerns, we are introducing amendments to the Pay Equity Act which will apply to the broader public sector. We are also taking steps to wind down the employee wage protection program, the last program in Canada that uses taxpayer money to cover employers' financial obligations to their employees.

Every level of government in Ontario is attempting to efficiently restructure the way public services are delivered. Upon its passage, this legislation will promote a timely, fair and orderly transition to improve public services in hospitals, schools and municipalities. A key objective will be to ensure that during this time of transition employees are treated fairly and labour relations issues are resolved by the workplace parties whenever possible in a timely and expeditious manner.

I want to re-emphasize that our goal is, above all else, to encourage and provide the workplace parties with the first opportunity to cooperatively resolve their issues through collective bargaining, but if they are not able to do so, to ensure that there is a process that will enable these issues to be resolved in a fair, timely and expeditious manner. This legislation will help us accomplish that goal.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to respond briefly to the Minister of Labour's statement. Minister, you sing a sweet, sweet song. You talked about the timely, fair and orderly transition you're attempting to put in place that's going to arise from public sector restructuring. You tell us that employees are going to be treated fairly.

Do you know how many employees we're talking about? Over 700,000 are going to be affected by this legislation. Do you know how many were consulted in the drafting of this legislation? Zero. Not a single one. That's a hell of a foot to set off on. If you're really committed to ensuring that employees are treated fairly, you would think that at a minimum you would have involved them from the outset in drafting this legislation to ensure that their views are heard.

I can recall when the Premier went apoplectic at the time that Bill 40 was introduced in this province. He said the signal that would be sent far and wide would cause foreign investors in particular to shy away from this.

Does he believe and does this minister believe that labour unrest in this province is in the greater public interest? Do you think that's going to draw to us international investors? Do you think that's a good signal to send to the business community? Hardly.

We're talking here about setting up another supposedly arm's-length, objective commission. We know all about those. We've seen them and we've come to know them only too well. We're talking about another fiction. That commission will be made up of choices handpicked by the Premier and the minister to do the minister's and the Premier's work and to make it abundantly clear that they are there to serve the government and to fulfil marching orders.

Minister, it's never too late in these things. Here's my request: Put this legislation aside for the time being. Meet with those who are going to be affected by this legislation. Prove to them that you are honestly and sincerely committed to their welfare. Otherwise, what is about to be unleashed in this province is something the likes of which you simply do not understand and which cannot be in the public interest.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Madam Minister, this piece of legislation called the Public Sector Transition Stability Act really should read Transition Instability Act. You got a taste of it right here today.

How many times does this government have to go through experiences where it tries to pre-empt the existing structures? The Ontario Labour Relations Board, as you well know, is highly regarded and is considered to be highly effective. It has expertise, it has sensitivity, it has competence and experience. In the briefing today, though, and I want to thank you for that, it became quite obvious that one of the reasons for this particular commission was because the labour relations board does not have the resources to deal with such things. Why not? It got its budget cut by over 40% this year, so it has fewer resources to deal with things.

I'd be interested to see how much this is all going to cost, controlled by people you're going to appoint who are going to affect librarians, social workers, nurses, police officers, firefighters -- as my leader has said, over 700,000 people throughout the province. Do you really think this is going to build trust and is going to build confidence in your government? It's going to be divisive and you're going to be at war for the next couple of years on some of this.

SENIORS' MONTH

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): We in the opposition party wish to add our thanks to the seniors of this province for their contribution and to the volunteer organizations for helping to recognize it during Seniors' Month.

But we also understand that this will be a month of reckoning for this minister supposedly in charge of seniors' issues and for this Premier, a month of reckoning for having taxed seniors for drugs to the tune of $220 million; for having taken $50 million off the OHIP schedule, which we'll hear about momentarily, making them pay for basic medical services; for cuts to hospital operating budgets, pushing seniors who are using those services out of hospitals quicker and sicker and seeing the tragedies, where we've heard unfortunately of too many seniors tied up sometimes in their hospital rooms or waiting in hospital emergency corridors for up to a week for services, some of them dying there.

Minister, there will be no thanks to your government for your treatment of seniors when we look at long-term-care charges of $40 a day, at downloading of ambulances and other medical services, at rent control that threatens them in the very security of their home or at property taxes where you refuse to take control. We will be holding you to account on behalf of this province's seniors throughout this Seniors' Month.

Interjection.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): There goes that minister again, who has to get up and apologize.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, you're out of order.

Minister, that's out of order. You'll have to withdraw.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I withdraw.

The Speaker: Response, third party.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The minister responsible for seniors knows that all of us in this House share with him the kind of pride he has expressed in the contributions of seniors in this province. But I must tell you, Minister, that seniors all over this province are experiencing poverty, they're experiencing health care deficits, they are experiencing loneliness and isolation, and those are factors that cannot be forgotten while we are celebrating these other things.

I am delighted that you have partnered on abuse of the elderly and I sincerely hope that as we look at abuse of the elderly in this province during this month, we will recognize that poverty is an abuse, lack of medical services is an abuse, isolation and loneliness is an abuse and it is something that all our communities need to join together with the government to resolve.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): To the Minister of Labour in response to her, by and large, declaration of war against the labour movement in terms of the rights of workers, a continuing attack: Let me say to you that the outburst you saw here a little while ago is the first act. You cannot continue to treat working people and their families and their standard of living in the way you have and expect that you can continue to sit there as you have today, smirking and grinning and laughing with your Premier, thinking you can get away with this.

You constantly talk about fairness. That's a word you bandy around this place consistently. Where was the fairness in Bill 7, when you took out the word "fair"? Where was the fairness in Bill 99, when you took out the word "fair"? Where was the fairness in the process?

You heard an outburst earlier from people who were here to watch your attack because they can't believe the media reports, so they came here to see it. You heard them say, "What about the doctors?" You sure took a lot of time and care to make sure the doctors had all the input they needed. That looked like a reasonably fair process. Gord Wilson and the Ontario Federation of Labour and other labour leaders in this province had no input into this legislation. I'll bet you talked to all your corporate pals, the very same people who are going to gain billions of dollars from your tax cuts. I'll bet you had lots of consultation with them. I'll bet they think you've got a really fair process.

What you're doing today in announcing this legislation is taking away 50 years of tradition of fairness in terms of making sure we can resolve disputes in the public sector in a way that's in the interests of the public sector. Minister, you're a disgrace to that ministry. All you care about is watering down the rights of workers, watering down the standard of living of working people in this province so you can find the money to pay for your tax cut.

The bungled health care cuts, the bungled education cuts and the bungled municipal restructuring are being paid on the backs of the workers in the public sector. I believe sincerely that you're hoping there is a war in our society, because your hope is that people will focus away from the attack on the public services that matter to this province. You're hoping there will be headlines of picket line clashes and work stoppages and work disputes. I believe you're hoping that will happen, to provide you with a cover for the ongoing attack on the quality of life in this province.

If anybody questions whether that's rhetoric, they only need look at the fact that the 30% tax cut is bogus. No working people are benefiting from that; only your corporate pals are benefiting. Inside this legislation, not only do we have taking away the rights of working people in the public sector and allowing the continuing attack on public services; just as if it were a drive-by shooting you're eliminating the last rights in the employee wage protection plan and further cutting pay equity rights that women in this province have fought for, for years, and deserve. They have no relation to this bill. You put it in here because you're hoping it'll get lost in the fray.

Minister, you will go down in history as the most infamous minister against labour that we've ever seen, and you're going to see one hell of a fight taking you on while you do it.

THOMAS COFFIN

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Mr Speaker, I understand we have unanimous consent for a statement regarding the death of OPP officer Thomas Coffin.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent for a statement about OPP officer Coffin? Agreed.

Hon Mr Runciman: As members of the House know, on May 31, 1997, a 32-year-old Ontario Provincial Police officer, Thomas Patrick Coffin, was shot and killed while off duty, just after finishing his shift. He was the eldest of four children.

The job of police officer is fraught with challenges, both off duty and on duty. We owe each and every police officer in this province and their families a debt of gratitude for living and coping with those challenges every day of their lives. Tom Coffin was a fine police officer, who paid the ultimate price in meeting those challenges.

Tom was known among colleagues and friends as a family man. He was strongly devoted to his wife, Kim, and his children, Laura, seven; Jordyn, three; and Matt, 22 months.

Tom was an avid sportsman and athlete. He played football and junior hockey in high school and coached midget league hockey. Over the past two seasons he was assistant coach and head coach of the Penetang Kings junior C hockey team.

Recently Tom travelled to Scotland, where he played the original golf course, St Andrews. He considered this the fulfilment of a dream.

Tom's career as a policeman began at the early age of 18, when he was accepted as an auxiliary police officer for the town of Alliston. At the age of 21 he joined the Kirkland Lake Police Service. In June 1991 he was hired by the Penetanguishene Police Service. In March 1996 he became an OPP officer when that service was amalgamated with the OPP.

His friends and colleagues say that the words that best described Tom Coffin are the same words associated with the important qualities of a police officer: honesty, integrity and compassion. I'm told Tom had the rare ability to remain calm and in control regardless of the situation.

On behalf, I'm sure, of all members of the Legislature, I wish to extend sincere condolences to Tom's family, friends, co-workers and the people of the town of Penetanguishene. He will be sorely missed.

I would like to request that members of the Legislature join me in a moment of silence to honour the memory of OPP officer Thomas Coffin.

The House observed a moment's silence.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Police officers stare trouble in the eye every day, but most of their encounters end in peace and not in violence. It didn't end that way for Tom Coffin, though. The well-respected former Kirkland Lake police officer was gunned down with a bullet to the head in a bar in Penetanguishene Saturday. He was 32 and the father of three.

I think it's fitting that we as politicians in the Ontario Legislature are the first to rise in our place to pay tribute to the life of a slain police officer, for we are the very first ones who are standing in our place when things go wrong in policing and criticizing the men and women who on a daily basis put their lives on the line for us.

Senior constable Thomas Patrick Coffin, as the Solicitor General mentioned, was formerly with the Kirkland Lake Police Service from 1986 to 1991. I know Mayor Mavrinac, as he expressed in the Northern Daily News, was very shocked and saddened by the death, as Sean O'Connor and others who had worked with him on the police services commission in Kirkland Lake over the years are also very shocked and saddened by this news.

As the Solicitor General mentioned, senior officer Coffin was also involved in his community, as most police officers are, in their various benefit organizations.

Constable Coffin loved hockey, and he coached minor hockey in Kirkland Lake, as he was also a coach in the Penetang junior C hockey league, coaching that team.

We confer extraordinary powers on our police officers, and we place extraordinary demands on them. With all of that, we put them and they put themselves in very extraordinary, dangerous situations. We are all saddened in this House, and on behalf of the Liberal caucus and all the members of the Legislature I wish to send our condolences to the constable's family and all the people he touched in his life.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On behalf of my leader and all of the members of the New Democratic Party, we want to express our very sincere condolences to Tom Coffin's family, to his colleagues and indeed to the citizens he served. This kind of circumstance is one which does make us reflect about how much we owe the men and women in this province who do the task of policing, a task that grows harder every day, a task that exposes them to danger in many ways.

When you have a police officer like Thomas Coffin who obviously, having joined as an auxiliary police officer for the town of Alliston when he was only 18 years old, had a lifelong dream of being a police officer, we know that this was a committed person, a person who throughout his work life had really displayed the commitment to the task of policing that we take for granted in so many of the officers who serve us.

While Officer Coffin's death did not occur directly in the line of duty, there is certainly some suggestion that the positions he took, which he obviously regarded as principled positions around some of the changes happening in policing, may have been one of the background factors to this terrible tragedy. It reminds us all that even when we are in our private capacity there are those who may find it difficult to accept some of the decisions we make, and that is particularly true of police officers.

We hear every year of police officers who find their private lives disturbed and upset by those who blame them personally for carrying out their duties. Sometimes I think as a community we do not offer the kind of support to those officers and their families that we ought to be providing. We expect them somehow to be above the kinds of problems that they indeed face as a result of the work we require them to do.

We are very saddened when something like this happens. We join our colleagues in the House in that sadness and want to make this an occasion for us all to honour the men and women who serve us as police officers in this province and in this country.

The Speaker: I thank the Solicitor General, the member for Timiskaming and the member for London Centre. I will give you my undertaking to send these comments to the officer's family.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, as you will recognize, the people of this province together with the rest of the people in Canada exercised their democratic rights and voted. I believe that they sent us here in this province, and you in particular, a very distinct message. They're saying no to your Tory-Reform agenda. They said no to the divisive us-against-them politics that have characterized Ontario for the past two years. In particular, they have said no to a tax cut.

I know the election has been difficult for you and your caucus. There has been some divisiveness between those who supported the Tories and those who supported Reform. There has been some name-calling; some insults have been traded. I am going to ask a very simple question: Will you listen to what the people are saying and will you drop the tax cut?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I too watched the election results last night with a great deal of interest, and I always listen to the people. I listened to you when you said on February 22, "Taxes are too high." I think that was a reflection of the people of Ontario.

There were three parties who got somewhere between 85% and 90% of the vote who said we need tax cuts. Some said right away, some said a little later. All three of those parties who got close to 90% of the vote said government is too big. It needs to be smaller, more efficient. We need to reform the health care system. We need to balance the books and we need to cut taxes. I'm with those 90% of the people.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The members for Nepean and Ottawa-Rideau, come to order, please.

Mr McGuinty: I believe the people of this province are with Standard and Poor's when it comes to this issue of the tax cut. This is two failed tests in a row. Yesterday you failed the test when the people of this province voted against Tory-Reform polices. Last week Standard and Poor's gave your tax cut and your policies a failing grade. They refused to upgrade the province's credit rating. They gave you a rating of AA-. They gave you the same rating they gave Bob Rae.

I can recall, at the time he was assigned that rating, how you were busting out of your chair and telling him there was simply no way we could withstand those kinds of economic policies for much longer, and now you have managed to replicate that grade.

Premier, once again, I think the people are with Standard and Poor's and I think they're with me on this issue. They don't want a tax cut at this time because we can't afford it. It's causing too much pain. Will you back away from it?

Hon Mr Harris: The Dominion Bond Rating Service said of Ontario's balanced budget plan: "Ontario's fiscal approach is a positive for the future credit outlook of the province. They have come through with what they said they would do." I want to tell you that I agree with the 90% of voters who said yesterday: "We need to balance the books. We need to downsize government. We need to encourage the private sector." And all three parties said we need to cut taxes.

I might tell you that I also agree with the member from Pembroke, Sean Conway, who in reaction to our budget said, "The good news is, there's going to be another cut in the provincial income tax rate."

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I engaged in an activity you shied away from during the past election. I went and knocked on doors and I supported Liberal members. I spoke with people on the doorstep and I can tell you what they told me. I don't derive my information from polls and editorials and columnists.

Let me tell you what they said. They said that we in Ontario are hurting, that our patients are hurting because of cuts that have been done to the funding of our hospitals. They said our kids are getting hurt because you're doing away with junior kindergarten and you've cut funding to children's aid societies. They said our seniors are getting hurt because you've implemented new user fees. They said our future is jeopardized because you've cut funding to post-secondary education. They understand that all of this has been driven by your obsession with a tax cut to be delivered in an immediate sense.

Once again, based on all that, and understanding now what I picked up at the doors, will you back away from the tax cut?

Hon Mr Harris: You mention reductions in health care funding. The public yesterday returned 101 out of 103 members of a party, the only party in Canada which has cut health care in Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, so clearly that was not the issue that was on their minds.

Quite frankly, I say to you that as a result of our tax rate reductions, revenues to the province are booming. They are up, just as when you and the NDP hiked tax rates, revenues went down. I agree with you, I might say to the leader of the Liberal Party, when on Focus Ontario, February 1, 1997, you said, "I see a very bright future ahead for Ontario." So do I.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The second question for the Premier: Yesterday, while people right across the country were exercising their democratic right to vote, you were busy taking away another of their basic democratic rights in this Legislature, and that is the right to be heard by way of their elected representatives. Yesterday, while no one was looking, under cover of a federal election, you brought forward some rule changes that are going to severely limit the right of the opposition to thoroughly and adequately debate legislation, and that's going to greatly interfere with our ability to hold you accountable to the people we enjoy the privilege of serving.

Yesterday your minister attempted to say that your government wasn't really involved in drafting those anti-democratic rules, so I want to ask you very clearly: Do you support those changes? Do you support taking away the democratic right to debate from members of this Legislative Assembly?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): If there are specific details, I'll refer them to the House leader later on, but let me tell you some things that I support. I support the process this government followed, contrary to the Liberals when they made changes. They brought the hammer down and put them right in the House and said, "Here, take it or leave it." No discussion, no debate, nothing among the House leaders. Then the NDP, when they brought in rule changes, bang, they were introduced: "Here they are. Here's the hammer. Like 'em or lump 'em."

We brought forward a proposal by Mr Baird, the member for Nepean -- in a full-blown press conference, not under any hidden mechanism -- for consultation. Most of the changes are a reflection of what is already practised in Ottawa or what we found in the House leader's books when Ms Martel was planning the same changes.

We invite your input and your discussion on those rule changes. One thing I can tell you -- the public agrees with this -- is that the rules were not working to the benefit of the people of Ontario and they want to see some reasonable changes.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would warn the members for Essex South, St Catharines, Windsor-Sandwich, Hamilton East, London Centre, Lake Nipigon. I would ask that you all come to order; I'm not warning you again. As well as the member for Algoma; I briefly forgot your riding.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you may not like it, but with the right to govern comes the corresponding obligation to listen. Your own backbenchers have criticized you for failing to listen to them. They say you've got no respect for democracy, you've got no respect for the right of the people and their representatives to be heard, and with these rules changes you've proven that once again. At a time when most Ontarians would agree that you're moving too quickly on too many fronts, these rule changes are going to permit you to move at double time while seriously diminishing our ability to hold you to account.

Premier, what makes you think that you somehow are above listening to the elected members of all three parties in this Legislature?

Hon Mr Harris: No government has listened more, had more public hearings on more pieces of legislation, travelled the province more than has this government. Clearly, if you want to refer to the record, you will find one of the most consultative cabinets, one of the most consultative Premiers and one of the most consultative governments, certainly in the last 12 years, in this province.

Mr McGuinty: Never have Ontarians ever been led by a Premier so willing to ignore the democratic rights of people and their duly elected representatives.

This is the Premier who ignored the people of Metropolitan Toronto when it came to the issue of the megacity referendum. This is the Premier who shoved Bill 26 down our collective throats. This is the Premier who silenced his backbenchers by firing his parliamentary assistants, and today he's decided to set his sights on the members of the opposition alone.

Listening, Premier, is a good thing. It's not a sign of weakness; it's a sign of strength. When Bill 26 was dealt with, to some extent properly, you were forced to introduce 150 amendments in an effort to improve it. That would not have come about had we not had at least some semblance of debate in this Legislature.

Premier, about these rules you've introduced, will you instead take them away from us and allow us to proceed with real debate on your initiatives?

Hon Mr Harris: In my recent memory of rule changes to deal with, as I think one reporter said, the tomfoolery as opposed to the business of the House, never, I believe, since I've been here, have we had a non-cabinet minister develop, in consultation with backbenchers, a proposal for discussion before anything has been tabled.

Once again I say to you that we are pleased to listen. We will prepare to meet with you. I think the member for Nepean has offered to meet with both House leaders. I am taking from your reaction that you're not 100% in favour of all the changes, but perhaps when you read through them and reflect on them, if there are some that you feel need to be changed or if you have some of your own, we'd be pleased to listen to those. I can tell you that the member for Elgin has already brought forward some proposals just today to the member. We're happy to listen to backbench members as well if the leadership isn't interested in participating.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I realize you're in your seat now, but it's still out of order to heckle.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Today you've launched your latest attack against workers and their democratic rights in Ontario. Your new legislation will effectively take away the right to strike from hundreds of thousands of workers in the municipal sector, the school board sector and ultimately in the entire broader public sector.

Minister, I want to ask you a very straightforward question, and for once, I would appreciate a straightforward answer: Why did you negotiate this bill in secret, refusing to meet with the representatives of the workers who are being attacked by this very legislation?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would like to correct the record and indicate that we have not taken away anybody's right to strike. In fact, what we have done today is that we have ensured that employees and employers sit down and make decisions regarding that first collective agreement, and then, if they are not able to do so, we have set in place a process that would enable them to resolve any outstanding issues. But we have not taken away the right to strike or the right to a lockout.

I would also indicate to you that we have been carefully monitoring the broader public sector and we have determined that there are going to be a huge number of mergers and amalgamations. In order to make sure that each employee is treated fairly as these amalgamations and mergers take place, in order that we don't disrupt services, we have, as I indicated to you, put in place a process that will encourage collective bargaining, but if it fails, there is a process.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, if the public did nothing more than listen to your words, we would think there's such a fair, gentle process in place that really is meant to have concern for the concerns of everyone. That's not the reality. You've put so much fiscal pressure on municipalities and school boards and hospital boards that they are going to be left with choices no one wants to make. They're going to table agreements that gut collective agreements and rights that workers have and they're going to send it to your hand-picked commission, which will have the power to say: "No strike. Here's your collective agreement, gutted and all."

Why did you treat well-paid doctors so fairly in terms of process, but you won't treat ordinary workers and their families and their income fairly? Why did you treat the two groups differently?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would simply remind you that this legislation is intended to facilitate the collective bargaining that is going to take place as restructuring takes place.

Mr Christopherson: What a load of crap.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, you have to withdraw that comment. That's out of order.

Mr Christopherson: I probably should have said it's a crock, Speaker. In that case, I withdraw.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The process is intended to ensure that all the parties are encouraged to resolve their own issues together and that each employee is treated fairly when the amalgamations take place. We want to make sure each member within a bargaining unit has the opportunity to make choices, and also if we're bringing together those employees who are not unionized, that they also have the opportunity to be treated fairly.

Mr Christopherson: That's not what's going on here. Anybody who works in the public sector watching here is furious at you trying to hand out that kind of pap and say that's what's going on here.

Let me ask you this: Inside this devastating declaration of war against public sector workers in our province, you're also taking away more rights from some of the most vulnerable workers in the province. For instance, low-paid women workers are losing rights under the Pay Equity Act, and workers who are facing bankruptcy are losing all their rights in terms of wage protection that we brought in so that not just the banks get their money, but workers get their money when there's a bankruptcy.

What's the connection between the attack on the pay equity legislation, the employee wage protection plan and this piece of legislation in terms of the public sector? Defend the connection. Tell us how those are connected in some way, because as far as we're concerned, it's just a drive-by shooting to grab a couple more rights away from workers under this attack.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would again emphasize that we have introduced this legislation in order to encourage the workplace parties to negotiate solutions. I would also just remind you, who was the government that forced employees to join OPSEU, who was the government that introduced the social contract?

Mr Christopherson: Answer my question.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In fact it was Bob Rae who said, "We want to give as much" --

Mr Christopherson: Answer my question.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I won't warn you again. You must come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members for Windsor-Sandwich and Kingston and The Islands, I appreciate your help but at this time I think I can handle it.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Former Premier Bob Rae said on March 30, 1993: "We want to give as much scope as possible to the negotiators so they can come up with solutions that make sense for their particular workplace. We have to restructure government to make it more responsive, more efficient, more cost-effective." I remember there was the suspension of the right to strike and lockout under your legislation. Instead, we are ensuring that our legislation enables each employee to make choices.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last year, according to your own estimates, you cut over $300 million from hospital operating budgets, and you did that before your hospital restructuring even begins to take place and, I would remind you again, at the cost of health care in this province, as we've shown you again and again in this House.

Then in last month's budget you add a mysterious $850 million to last year's health spending for so-called restructuring expenditures. So it's not too surprising that we learn of the Grey Bruce Regional Health Centre, which now has a deficit of over half a million dollars. Why? Because they had to pay out $742,000 in severance costs, the costs of cutting back caused by your government.

Minister, will you be paying the Grey Bruce Regional Health Centre the $742,000 out of that mysterious $850 million in restructuring costs?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Perhaps I could clarify for the honourable member that yes, we have asked hospitals to achieve savings, very doable savings, both the last fiscal year and this current fiscal year. But even prior to seeing any of those savings, the health care budget in the province of Ontario, in spite of federal cuts, went up significantly.

All the money and more, almost two and a half times more than we've seen in hospital savings to date, has been reinvested into health care, including back into hospitals, so that we can have the shortest waiting lists in the history of the province for cardiac services, so that we could open up 23 new dialysis clinics in a community near to where dialysis patients live throughout the province.

The good news with respect to the reinvestments in health care could go on and on, all $960 million worth of money into health care reinvested into the system. With respect to Grey Bruce, we'd be happy to look at that.

Yes, there is $850 million booked there as a result of interim and final decisions put forward by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. That's to pay for restructuring --

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

Mrs Boyd: Minister, what you don't seem to understand is that hospitals have had to restructure by laying off staff before your famous commission even gives its recommendations. That's the point. Garth Pierce, who is the president of the Grey Bruce Regional Health Centre, said: "It was a one-time expense necessitated by government cutbacks. We paid out $742,000 in severance, notice and early retirement costs."

People all over this province have been telling you and your hospital restructuring committee that what you're doing is shifting the money around. You're stealing from Peter to pay Paul, and it's a false economy. The $850 million that you put into health care is the cost of paying off all the 10,000 workers who have been severed. It is not going into patient care; it is going into your efforts to downgrade our health care.

Hon Mr Wilson: I obviously don't agree with the premise of the question. I don't know where she gets 10,000 people laid off. The fact of the matter is, most hospitals in this province are doing very well in getting rid of the duplication, the excessive administration that your party and the Liberal Party left in there. When you closed 11,000 hospital beds over the last 10 years in this province, you left what? Buildings half-empty, all of the high-paid administration still there, and fewer and fewer services in those buildings, to the point where we as a government inherited waiting lists that are unethical and immoral in this province.

The nurses are bang on every time they tell politicians that there's no way we should have the waiting lists for services that we have in this province with the record amount of money we're spending on health care. No one in this country today spends more per person on health care than the province of Ontario. Our commitment is to make the system better for patients, get rid of the half-empty buildings and make sure we have modern hospitals with the newest technologies and more services for our growing and aging population.

Mrs Boyd: We don't classify health care workers, 10,000 health care workers who are registered nurses, nursing assistants, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiology technicians, respiratory technicians -- all of those people who support our health care. You say you don't know about 10,000 workers? Your Minister of Labour did, because we know that this bill she's introducing today is to save more money out of the system by ending the protections on severance for health care workers, among other public servants in this province.

All of this restructuring costs you money if you have to pay out severance, if you have to give the proper protection to employees who are losing their jobs because of your cuts: not because of restructuring, but because of your cuts.

Minister, we know you think these people are hula hoop manufacturers. We know you think they are duplicates, that they're superfluous. Do you think they do nothing for the quality of health care? You're the one who said it's not about bricks and mortar, it's about the care they have. What are you doing to health care workers in this --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for London Centre.

Hon Mr Wilson: The finance minister did announce over $2 billion, unprecedented new money for the health care system, to ensure that we get through the restructuring, we pay the severances that are entitled and we provide the education and retraining that's required.

The honourable member is completely wrong. We have a shortage today of speech-language pathologists. I've announced $170 million for new community-based services and I cannot get speech-language pathology into seniors' homes because I don't have enough speech-language pathologists. There are not enough physiotherapists in Ontario today. I can't get the in-home services as fast as I'd like to. The money is certainly on the table and out on the streets.

We have a shortage of those professions, so stop scaring young people from going into those professions. Laurentian University put out a study four months ago showing that we're running into a shortage of baccalaureate-prepared nurses, so stop scaring young people from going into nursing.

There are more and more jobs being created as a result of the growing and aging population. Health care is a booming business in this province, and this government is putting more into health care than anybody else ever in the history of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, that was unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw it.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I withdraw.

ASSISTANCE TO DISABLED STUDENTS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. I want to come back to the story of Gordie Kirwan. You will recall it was about three and a half months ago I raised that issue with you in the Legislature. You agreed to meet with the Kirwans and provided them with your personal assurance that you would do all that was necessary to ensure that Gordie, who is 21 years of age, shortly turning 22, and developmentally disabled, can continue with his schooling, which has been very productive for him and his parents.

Some 15 minutes ago I was on the phone with Mrs Kirwan, and to say the least, she is very, very upset and distraught. Minister, I am asking on her behalf why this matter has not been resolved.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm somewhat surprised by the question from the Leader of the Opposition today. My office, my direct office, was in communication with Mrs Kirwan yesterday.

The ministry has been working with other ministries, trying to resolve an issue for disabled people who are over 21 which has existed in this province for a very long period of time. I'm sure the member opposite must be familiar with the legislation.

I met the Kirwans. I told them we would find a resolution to this. We are working on it now in cooperation with the Minister of Community and Social Services. We are working on that now inside the ministries. We were able to give a progress report to the Kirwans yesterday and I will be in touch with them in the very near future when we have some briefings from the ministry about possible resolutions for this and possible legislation that might help us resolve these issues.

I'm surprised at the tone and tenor of the question. Let's be very clear: We've been working very hard on this issue over the last three months in attempting to resolve this issue for that family and for other families in the province. You ignored this issue when you were in power. For five years you ignored it and now you want action in three months.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I'm somewhat taken aback at your response. I'm not trying to make political hay out of this. I would not have advanced this if Mrs Kirwan hadn't approached me. She doesn't want any more promises; she wants your assurance and she wants action, that come this September her son Gordie will be enrolled in school and that you will somehow find the necessary funding for that -- nothing short of that. On her behalf, that's what I'm asking for once again.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Then let me again say to you that I have given the assurance that we will take on this very difficult problem. We are taking that on with all our energy and all our good intentions and we will find a resolution to it for that family and for other families in Ontario. Let me say again, we've done much more in the last three months than you did in five years.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa Centre, I don't think that's appropriate language. I ask you to refrain. Thank you.

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. I have a copy of a letter that you sent to your member for Mississauga South regarding one of her constituents who lost their job as a result of your privatization of GO Temp services within the Ontario government. In this letter you assured her that her constituent would receive severance pay, as required by law. Minister, why did you change your mind?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I don't have the letter to the particular individual, but rest assured that this government will ensure that what is required by law, every entitlement, is given to this individual.

Mr Christopherson: Let me try to help a little. The letter says very clearly, "GO Temp employees who have been employed for five years and more would also receive severance pay." In a decision of the Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board on May 26, as a result of a hearing on May 20, it says, "The employer" -- that's you, Minister -- "claimed in its broadest submission that no GO Temp employee was entitled to severance pay."

Minister, how do you justify saying one thing one day to one of your backbenchers and then presenting an opposite legal case in front of the grievance settlement board? How do you justify that?

Hon David Johnson: This is a somewhat complicated situation in terms of the benefits to those on GO Temp, because in many instances they don't have continued service. Some served a certain amount one year, a certain amount the next year etc. It's a situation that has to be determined. The matter has been before the proper authority to determine. Whatever decisions are made through the proper authorities will be implemented and the member can rest assured that at the end of the day, what is required by law will be given to this particular individual and to all the individuals involved with GO Temp.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. I appreciated the statement you made in the House earlier today, but as you spoke you raised a question in my mind that has been raised at a series of meetings I've held across my riding during the past month with seniors and with seniors' organizations.

I wonder if you might respond to that question that's been raised by many, because it involves what I understand is a press release that was done by the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations. It was done some time in the last month and it made comments on seniors and prescription drugs. Minister, have you discussed those concerns with that coalition?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I would like to thank the member for raising this concern on behalf of seniors. I have read the material that he has read, that was presented here and in several forums. The fact is that the coalition, along with a whole series of other senior organizations in the province, has expressed concern about the over-medication of seniors.

When I look at their press release, they suggest that previous governments have failed to look at a series of options. They include in their press release implementing the British Columbia model of reference-based pricing; pressuring the federal government to repeal Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation; demanding pharmacists lower their dispensing fees; educating seniors about misuse of drugs; looking at physician fees and so on.

Seniors, as consumers, have asked that they participate --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Shea: Those of us in this House who serve on the public accounts committee know that we've been giving some consideration of recent time to the Ontario drug benefit program. That was also referenced in the coalition's media release. Would the minister inform the House how the Ontario government's treatment of low-income seniors compares to that of other provinces?

Hon Mr Jackson: This coalition is part of a national organization of pensioners and senior citizens' federations, and they have acknowledged that in all of Canada and indeed North America the most inexpensive publicly funded drug program is here in this province, and yet it is the most expensive plan for taxpayers in North America at $1 billion a year on drugs.

They also acknowledge that low-income seniors in Nova Scotia pay a $215 premium and then 20%; in PEI they pay $400; in Saskatchewan, $540; and in Ontario only $50 a year for low-income seniors on --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question.

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): My question is to the minister of Health. Mr Minister, as you are well aware, your hospital closing commission recommended that the community hospital in my riding, Northwestern General Hospital, be closed. Supporters of Northwestern submitted a formal appeal, as other hospitals have done in Metro, and requested that the commission reconsider its decision based on the fact that in the case of Northwestern a major study was not taken into account by the restructuring commission.

However, even though the appeal is pending, Northwestern hospital is being dismantled, department by department, service by service. In fact, as we stand here today the microbiology department and the paediatrics department are being dismantled.

How is it fair, when the appeal is before the commission, that the hospital is being dismantled? Shouldn't they wait until the appeal at least is heard?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I am well aware that during a restructuring period -- because every other province has restructured. We're the last to do it. In fact, Britain, Australia and New Zealand have all restructured. Learning from those experiences, human beings being what they are, when they hear about a restructuring or a possible closing of a building, they are already tempted to start to move the services. There are a lot of informal agreements going on in the city right now among those hospitals which will receive the increased services or the amalgamating services from other hospitals.

We are monitoring that. Legally, the services are not to move at this point, but I encourage the partners to speak with each other. The operating plans of Northwestern hospital are approved by the Ministry of Health and those services aren't to go anywhere until there's a final determination of the Health Services Restructuring Commission. But, being quite frank with the honourable member, that doesn't mean that the doctors and nurses won't already be making informal arrangements with other hospitals to provide those services.

Mr Colle: Mr Minister, we were told by your closing commission that we could make an appeal. We launched the appeal and the citizens did that. While we're waiting for the appeal to be heard, they're carrying beds out of the hospital, they're carrying equipment out, they're closing departments. People are asking me, "Is this appeal a sham or a farce, or are they just playing games with us?" Will you ask them to stop and desist? Tell them to at least have the common courtesy to wait till they hear the appeal before they take beds out of the hospital.

Hon Mr Wilson: Approval would have to be sought before a major program changes at the hospital. Those approvals have not been granted in the case of any of the hospitals because of the appeal process that's going on and respect for the law that we must have as a government and that the commission must have. We don't own any of the 208 hospitals. If their board decides to do something without approval of the Ministry of Health, which does happen from time to time, then I will use moral suasion; I will do what I can.

But your community owns that hospital and your community, along with its board, needs to make sure that the services are in place and that plans are in place before any of those services amalgamate on to the other hospital sites.

At the end of the day, we will have more services for people, for the growing and aging population, but I agree with the honourable member that we have a couple of years where it will be a challenge to make sure there are no gaps in services. Right now there is no approval to move services out of that hospital. That's the best answer I can give the honourable member.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Virtually every time you stand up and tell us what a great job you're doing in providing restructured health care, you talk about cardiac care, so I'd like to talk about the requirements for heart surgery in Windsor, Ontario, because it affects all of us in the southwest region. The closest accessible facility to Windsor is London, a two-hour drive away. There are approximately 500 patients a year who require heart surgery or angioplasty in Windsor.

Only 58% of those are able to get their surgery or their angioplasty within the recommended time period because there are not enough beds in London, there are not enough facilities to accommodate them.

The Windsor cardiologists, the hospitals and the district health council in Windsor have made a joint request to the Health Services Restructuring Commission to give them a cardiac surgery centre. The question is simple: If in fact the commission agrees, will you fund it?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): We have a number of requests, about nine, from across the province from hospitals which are currently not in the cardiac business for cath labs or surgery capacity. The honourable member will know that no politician, since the Liberals set up the Cardiac Care Network, would make the decision as to where the increasing cardiac services should be located in the province.

We rely on advice from the Cardiac Care Network. That is the group of experts that was set up. They also are the ones who operate and control the heart surgery waiting list in this province. Those very experts absolutely are thrilled by the government's $35-million announcement, and that money is flowing. For the last 10 or 11 weekends the nurses -- 80% of that money is going into overtime for nurses -- and the cardiac surgeons have been working very hard to ensure we have the shortest waiting lists in the history of the province.

With respect to proposals from Windsor and several other areas, those will all be reviewed by the ministry, but more importantly by the Cardiac Care Network, and we await their recommendations.

Mrs Boyd: In fact, Larry Leigh, who is the regional cardiac care coordinator in this network you talk about, has said very clearly that there is a shortage of beds to look after Windsor patients, that the waits are getting longer. He also says the $33 million for cardiac surgery the government recently announced is a stopgap measure. Windsor is a city of 250,000 people. There are another 150,000 in the surrounding counties. I ask you again, will you guarantee that if the restructuring commission agrees there should be a cardiac centre, you will see it is funded?

Hon Mr Wilson: The short answer is yes. If the Health Services Restructuring Commission recommends that, in fact if it directs the government to do that, we will fully fund it. That's what the $2 billion is for, that's what the record-level health care budget is for, to make sure patients receive services. But the commission I know won't do that without the expert advice from the Cardiac Care Network. Both bodies are reviewing that, and when we get those recommendations we will act as quickly as we can.

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I was pleased to see the attention that agriculture and food received in the 1997 Ontario budget. It's nice to see the budget growing to $405 million. Agriculture and food has had some harrowing times in the past, and this government is plowing back some resources into this important segment of our economy.

This government has clearly shown its commitment to agriculture and food and the agrifood business, especially with the three-year $30-million commitment for a rural job strategy. Part of the strategy is to invest in job creation for youth in rural Ontario. Can you inform the House about this program?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I should thank my honourable colleague for that question. Yes, the agrifood sector in Ontario contributes $25 billion annually to the economy and employs more than 640,000 people. That's very important to our economy and that's the reason why the OMAFRA budget was not cut, indeed it was increased slightly, and that is why that is true --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Since 1995, Noble.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Absolutely. The agricultural budget was increased, unlike the former government that shut down two of our agricultural colleges. That's why $3 million will be invested to support a $2-per-hour rebate for rural employment. I really want to advise all rural businesses, including processors, that the organizations can take

part in this rebate, $2 an hour for rural youth. This government recognizes the importance of the agrifood sector.

Mr Chudleigh: We're having a very late spring this year and all too often this means a long, hot summer. That puts added pressure on harvesting and handling and food processing. Many employers, especially in my riding of Halton North, will want to take advantage of this opportunity, of this program. Minister, could you tell us specifically how this program works?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Eligible employers in rural Ontario will receive a $2-per-hour rebate for students they employ. Ministry staff are processing applications and we look forward to processing considerably more because they can indeed employ more than one student. Everyone will benefit from the skills and the learning ability that these students will have when working, not only in agriculture but in food processing.

PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday a psychiatric patient from the Whitby centre was charged with robbery, sexual assault with a weapon, attempt to choke, forcible confinement and threatening death. Last week another mental patient went AWOL at one of our medium-security institutions, the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

As you know by now, Minister, there are literally hundreds of other cases where people go AWOL at these institutions. There is an obvious pattern emerging, and I'm asking you today whether you are ready to hold public inquiries, or at least one public inquiry, into these incidents so that public security is guaranteed.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I certainly am launching an investigation to cover both of the incidents that occurred in the last few days. I would also remind the honourable member that, in the past when this has happened, governments have launched investigations and they have been worthwhile endeavours in terms of making recommendations to correct the system to try and ensure as best as possible this doesn't happen.

In particular, the focus of the latter investigation has to be on what is meant by the review board when it says "indirect supervision." We have to look at that and what the

interpretation has been of those institutions and what is meant by "indirect supervision."

I will say to the honourable member too that this government has taken decisive action to ensure that the review board has tremendous leadership. It does now have a former Supreme Court judge as the head of the review board, Justice Carruthers, and I know he will look at this matter very seriously, but an investigation is being launched.

Mr Ruprecht: I am not sure the minister understood my question. I am not asking you for an investigation. I am asking you for a public inquiry and all the bells and whistles that go along with it.

As you understand, Minister, both these institutions are medium-security institutions for insane killers. You know that, the whole world knows about that. In the case of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, you also are aware that from January 1, 1997, until today there have been over 100 calls of missing persons.

If you are aware of these statistics, which I think you are, would it not then make sense to call for a public inquiry, especially since you personally have talked to me about this and you are really personally responsible for instituting this policy, especially when it comes to the Queen Street Mental Health Centre?

We have had demonstration after demonstration in front of the centre. We've talked to this minister and he gave us his personal assurances that these incidents would not --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: That is extremely unfair. It is this member who keeps having protests because he doesn't want a more secure unit installed at Queen Street. Why don't you fess up and tell people here what you're telling me privately and what you're out front demonstrating? We need more secure facilities down there and you've been protesting against that ever since I've been Minister of Health. That is the public record.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Just a moment. Member for Parkdale, you have a point of order?

Mr Ruprecht: I'm really very unhappy with the answer I've received to this question and consequently I'm asking you and the table for a late show.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Are you sure you want it?

Mr Ruprecht: Yes, I do. I am very sure, because I know what's going on around here. There's got to be a sense of responsibility, because this can't continue and we need some action.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Parkdale, you'll get your five minutes later on.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, come to order. I don't know how you have a dog in this fight right here. Come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Parkdale, if you file the appropriate papers, we will get it.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. I continue to be puzzled about what the relationship is between you as minister, your ministry and the Health Services Restructuring Commission when it comes to psychiatric hospitals. I'd like to get some clarification from you.

You first took the position that the commission had the right to order the government to close psychiatric hospitals. When they said no, that was not the case, that in fact you are the owner-operator of those hospitals, that they could not order you to do that, that Bill 26 did not give them that capacity, you then proceeded to enter a different relationship.

We have now heard of two letters sent by your deputy minister, Margaret Mottershead, regarding psychiatric facilities, one in the London-St Thomas area and the other in the Brockville area, and they seem to be remarkably dissimilar in their content. Ms Mottershead talks about the need for outpatient services and forensic services at Brockville, but that was not the question in London-St Thomas where two hospitals are going to be closed.

Would you clarify for us exactly what the relationship is of the ministry and yourself to the commission?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Yes, I'd be very pleased to remind the honourable member that from day one of the establishment of the commission, including remarks in this House, we said we would treat both the legal directives as established with the power that the commission has under the law and the commission's advice. Both would be treated equally as a matter of policy by this government. That answers, I think, the honourable member's question.

With respect to the deputy minister's letters to the commission, those are public letters, as part of the Ministry of Health's response to interim decisions, advice and/or directions from the commission, so there's nothing clandestine about that. Those are public letters. There are two different sets of circumstances, which is very difficult to answer in 10 seconds, and that's why the letters are different. We're trying to respond to the unique needs of the southwestern area versus the northern area of the province, and that's why the letters have slightly different content in each.

Mrs Boyd: I am rather puzzled. I don't know about a northern area. We're talking about two southern areas. The big difference between Elgin and Middlesex is there's not a minister sitting in this House who happens to hold the seat. It's quite clear that that is the only difference and that you're playing politics with this issue of closure of hospitals. It is going to backfire on you in a very big way because it gives the lie to all the other statements you make about disinterestedness.

Why is the deputy minister only responding to suggestions that now have been made to you by the restructuring commission? Why did the same deputy minister refuse permission to the heads of those hospitals and those communities to have some input into the process in the first place?

Hon Mr Wilson: I apologize to the honourable member. I was referring -- also there's a letter in Thunder Bay with respect to the directives there.

What I want to know from the honourable member is, what don't you like about the direction? No beds closing unless all community services are in place: That's now guaranteed to the people of the province. It's a heck of a lot better than the policy statements your government or the Liberals made.

Repatriation of patients to Ottawa, back to Kitchener-Waterloo from the southwest, back home: You have said for years, your party has said for years, and anyone who knows anything about mental health issues in this province has said for years, that patients should be as close to family as possible; yes, in institutional hospital beds, but close to family -- some 40 patients in the southwest going home so that their families can visit them.

I want to know specifically -- the honourable member has been putting up with this for months -- what don't you like? And what you don't like, you better get on paper and get it into the commission because it would like your advice. It wants to make sure it makes the proper decisions on behalf of patients and their loved ones in this province, so I --

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for London Centre, come to order.

MOTIONS

OPPOSITION DAY

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move a motion respecting opposition day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The government House leader seeks unanimous consent for a motion on opposition day. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: I move, notwithstanding standing order 42, the third party be authorized to give notice for an opposition day to be taken up tomorrow.

The Speaker: Mr Johnson moves, notwithstanding standing order 42, the third party be authorized to give notice for an opposition day to be taken up tomorrow.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Is that in his own hand?

The Speaker: That is in his own hand, that's right. Agreed? Agreed.

PETITIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I've got a petition.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, has proposed the fingerprinting of all Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas fingerprinting of Ontarians was never promised in the Common Sense Revolution, or in his election campaign; and

"Whereas universal fingerprinting of Ontario citizens is a direct violation of basic civil rights and fundamental rights of privacy; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is intervening and intruding into all aspects of daily life, from megacities to user fees to rent controls and market value taxes, which he never promised in the election campaign;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to oppose Mike Harris's plan to fingerprint Ontario citizens, and to respect their privacy and to stop creating a mega-government that does not respect the basic freedom and individuality of the citizens of Ontario."

I affix my fingerprint to the petition and sign it.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have also signed that petition.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It states:

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for Sudbury, which promotes smaller class sizes passed second reading; and

"Whereas this bill, called Bill 110, was referred to the social development committee; and

"Whereas we, the stakeholders in education, want the government committee to hear what we have to say about smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas we want to hear what the government committee has to say regarding smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas all people in Ontario have a right to speak to the social development committee about smaller class sizes;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the recommendation that the social development committee travel across Ontario to find out what the students, parents, teachers and taxpayers of Ontario are saying about smaller class sizes and Bill 110, the smaller class sizes act."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "Whereas the Conservative Party has broken its promise that it would not close hospitals in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party said it would not introduce user fees and proceeded to introduce $225 million in new user fees for seniors through the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised that aid for the disabled would not be cut and proceeded to level millions of dollars in new user fees on to the backs of the disabled; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised there would be no cuts to education and then proceeded to impose cuts which caused the cancellation of JK classes, the cancellation of special education programs and created larger classroom sizes; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party stated there would be no cuts to law enforcement and then cut the budget of Ontario police and courts by more than $100 million; and

"Whereas the Conservative Party promised that there would be no cuts to the environment and has broken this promise by firing environmental inspectors and cutting the budget that protects the environment by over $100 million;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Conservative Party to cancel the last stage of its tax scheme, which benefits the wealthiest people in Ontario the most, and restore funding for programs which protect health care, education, seniors and the environment."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have more petitions that read:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas sexual assault is a crime and the effects of abuse last a lifetime for the survivors of these crimes; and

"Whereas sexual assault crisis centres provide community-based, women-positive, cost-effective services which recognize and respond to both recent, historical and childhood sexual assaults, offering short-term crisis intervention, longer-term therapy, public education, prevention, court and police support;

"Whereas hospital-based treatment centres are mandated primarily to work with survivors of recent sexual assaults with a medical-forensic approach, offering only short-term counselling and referrals, while adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse or historical assaults need longer-term services to recover from the horrendous crimes they have suffered;

"Whereas if Parliament decides to close sexual assault crisis centres and redistribute drastically reduced funds to treatments centres, most adult survivors of sexual assault will not have the services they need to heal and will be further victimized;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to maintain community-based sexual assault crisis centres."

I agree with this petition and will sign my name to it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This petition was sent to me by the good people of Windsor-Riverside and many in the apartments at 255 Riverside Drive East and is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and other desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

On behalf of the residents of Windsor-Riverside, we would dearly love for the government to call a by-election.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition regarding long-term care and it says:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has proposed legislation which will set the stage for privatization of municipally funded homes for the aged or long-term care facilities;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the process of outsourcing or the privatization of essential support staff in St Lawrence Lodge. We are an essential service to the community."

I am proud to affix my signature to this petition, which has hundreds of signatures.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition «Sauvons Montfort». J'aimerais aussi mentionner que nous avons maintenant atteint plus de 130 000 signatures.

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort et que cette décision constitue le rejet de la volonté de l'entière communauté francophone de la province et de la communauté de l'est ;

«Attendu que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans l'aire de service de l'hôpital Montfort, soit à l'est de l'Ontario, où la population connaît un des plus hauts taux de croissance dans toute la province, que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital et qu'en plus, Montfort dessert le nord le l'Ontario, où le nombre de francophones est très élevé ;

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

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne auprès de la Commission de restructuration des soins de santé de l'Ontario afin que soit préservé l'emplacement actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de la communauté.»

J'y ajoute ma signature avec fierté. Merci.

ADULT EDUCATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have yet more petitions from students who attend the Jones Avenue adult school in my riding. It reads:

"We, the undersigned students of Jones Avenue school, believe the government's proposal to cut the educational budget will jeopardize our future. If Jones Avenue school is closed or totally altered, we will have fewer opportunities to learn. If it results in larger classes, it means less individual attention for all the students. The learning effects will be diminished.

"If, as suggested, we are pushed to go to night school, that means we have fewer opportunities to learn as regular students. Also, night school is not secure for women. At night school the teachers and students may not have enough time to know each other.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep getting petitions against charging seniors the $2 user fee. This petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge seniors a $2 user fee for each prescription filled since July 15, 1996; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee copayment or from other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee, or the painstaking task involved in filling out the application forms; and

"Whereas the current Ontario Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an opposition MPP in a July 5, 1993, letter to Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the" Progressive Conservative "government to repeal this user fee plan because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, sensitive or accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors; and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I am proud to affix my signature to this document.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): This petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the registered voters of the province of Ontario, expect the government we elect to lead our Legislature in a responsible and competent manner; and

"Whereas we expect the government we elect to be the government of all the people and to consult with the opposition and to respect the mandate given the government by the electorate; and

"Whereas the present government, led by Premier Mike Harris, (1) has forced the passage of important legislation without adequate preparation, consultation and debate, and (2) has exceeded the mandate given the government by the electorate, and (3) has passed legislation, including Bill 26, and passed Bills 103, 104 and 107, that increase the power of the government to unduly intrude into the lives of the people and contradicts the values that define us as a compassionate, inclusive and just society, and (4) has caused us to become more divided at a time when we should be overlooking our differences and coming together to find new ways of protecting and nurturing those values to which we all aspire; and

"Whereas we, the registered voters of the province of Ontario, have lost all confidence in the leadership of Mike Harris;

"Then

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of the province of Ontario to remove Mike Harris from the position of Premier by whatever legal means, including his voluntary resignation, and to replace him at the earliest possible moment with a competent and responsive member of the provincial Parliament."

I will affix my name gladly to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition here signed by hundreds of residents of Geraldton, Longlac and Nakina in northern Ontario who are very concerned about the provincial downloading and the effects it will have on all residents. It reads:

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring process proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and failure to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of Ontario."

I'm pleased to sign this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 105,

An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety / Projet de loi 105, Loi visant à renouveler le partenariat entre la province, les municipalités et la police et visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 105 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Parkdale has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning Queen Street Mental Health Centre. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 136,

An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi prévoyant le règlement rapide des différends lors des négociations collectives dans certains secteurs, facilitant les négociations collectives à la suite de la restructuration dans le secteur public et apportant certaines modifications à la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et à la

Loi sur l'équité salariale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mrs Witmer moves that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled

An Act to provide for the expeditious -- dispense? No -- resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act and that it be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ross, Lillian

Baird, John R.

Hardeman, Ernie

Runciman, Robert W.

Barrett, Toby

Hudak, Tim

Sampson, Rob

Beaubien, Marcel

Johnson, Bert

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Johnson, David

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Jordan, W. Leo

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Kells, Morley

Snobelen, John

Cunningham, Dianne

Klees, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Danford, Harry

Leadston, Gary L.

Tilson, David

DeFaria, Carl

Marland, Margaret

Turnbull, David

Doyle, Ed

McLean, Allan K.

Vankoughnet, Bill

Ecker, Janet

Munro, Julia

Villeneuve, Noble

Elliott, Brenda

Newman, Dan

Wilson, Jim

Fisher, Barbara

O'Toole, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Fox, Gary

Palladini, Al

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

Parker, John L.

Young, Terence

Galt, Doug

Pettit, Trevor

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Curling, Alvin

Patten, Richard

Bartolucci, Rick

Gerretsen, John

Phillips, Gerry

Boyd, Marion

Gravelle, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Bradley, James J.

Kennedy, Gerard

Ramsay, David

Chiarelli, Robert

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Ruprecht, Tony

Christopherson, David

Martel, Shelley

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

McLeod, Lyn

Wildman, Bud

Cleary, John C.

Miclash, Frank

Wood, Len

Conway, Sean G.

North, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 26.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Minister, do you wish to make any comments?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): No.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BUSES), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (AUTOBUS SCOLAIRES)

Mr Froese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 137,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to school buses / Projet de loi 137, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui a trait aux autobus scolaires.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you wish to make any comments?

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. The bill makes two changes to the Highway Traffic Act. First, the driver of a school bus is required to stop at a railway crossing that is protected by gates or railway crossing signal lights even when the gates or lights are not giving warning of the approach of a railway train. Second, school bus drivers who stop on a highway in a line behind a school bus driver who has stopped for the purpose of receiving or discharging passengers are required to actuate the overhead red signal lights and stop arm on their buses while stopped.

These amendments will provide further protection to our most precious resources, our children, while travelling in Ontario's school buses. Each member will have received a package today with background information.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This is Pat's bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Froese: If you have any questions, please give me a call. I look forward to the debate on Thursday, June 19.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order, when the order of the day is called for third reading of Bill 57,

An Act to improve the Efficiency of the Environmental Approvals Process and Certain Other Matters, the Speaker shall put the question forthwith on the motion for third reading, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment. If a recorded vote is requested on the motion for third reading, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Johnson, do you have another motion?

Hon David Johnson: Yes, Mr Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to have the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy speak to the motion and that after his time is complete, the remaining time be split between the two opposition parties.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed. The parliamentary assistant.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): The government House leader has put forward a time allocation motion with respect to Bill 57,

An Act to improve the Efficiency of the Environmental Approvals Process and Certain Other Matters. That motion provides that when the bill is next called for third reading, there would be no further amendments or debate and the question would be immediately put.

In 1992, the NDP government moved a similar time allocation motion on Bill 150, the Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations Act. Bill 150 received only two days' debate on second reading, five days at the standing committee and only one regular sessional day -- two hours and nine minutes -- at third reading before the bill was time allocated.

We have provided for greater consideration of Bill 57. Bill 57 was introduced on June 3, 1996. That's a full year ago today. It received three days' debate on second reading and four days in committee for public hearings and clause-by-clause consideration. At third reading, Bill 57 has already been debated for an extended sessional day for four hours and 35 minutes -- more than twice as long as third reading debate on the NDP government's Bill 150.

We did not want to time allocate Bill 57. Indeed, we have tried to deal with Bill 57 in the best way that we know how: at the negotiating table. For months, the House leaders have been trying to reach agreement with respect to Bill 57, and that obviously has been impossible to do. We have been patient with the opposition parties; however, in order to move forward with our legislative agenda we have no option but to use the rules of the House available to us.

Bill 57 has moved through the legislative process with few amendments that have been proposed, and it is time for us to move forward and debate this motion. Indeed, this is long overdue. I have been regularly asked, as the parliamentary assistant for environment, "When are we going to get on with the standardized approvals?" They have been nicknamed SARs, the acronym for standardized approvals regulations, and it has been rather embarrassing to admit that it's been a full year as of today since it's been introduced. We were in third reading last December and we still don't have it through, all due to resistance on the part of the opposition parties.

Our stated goal a year ago was exactly the same as it is today: to provide effective and responsible environmental protection to the people of Ontario. Bill 57 is, in part, a series of initiatives undertaken by the Honourable Norm Sterling, Minister of Environment and Energy. We are leading the Ministry of Environment and Energy's efforts to reform and to sharpen its regulatory tools.

The best example of these reforms may be our updated and improved environmental assessment systems. I should point out here that our predecessors also proposed reforms to environmental assessment, but they were of an administrative nature only. This government felt that real improvements to environmental assessment could only be made through legislative change. We made this change, and on New Year's Day of this year Minister Sterling announced the final proclamation of these reforms.

Today we have an environmental assessment system that is modern and workable. It maintains all of the classic features of environmental assessment while introducing a number of firsts that enable us to say a faster yes to environmentally responsible projects and also to say a faster no to those projects that are not environmentally responsible.

The reasoning behind environmental assessment reform and other changes being undertaken at the ministry is really quite simple: to enable the ministry to maintain and, wherever possible, to improve upon the high standard of environmental protection enjoyed in the province of Ontario. The Ontario government is not against regulation per se; in fact, as you will see in just a few minutes when I talk about Bill 57, we are proposing to create some new ones. But they will be new ones that work; they will be new ones that produce results.

This focus on results is, I believe, what has been lacking in much of Ontario's environmental protection system. Far too much emphasis has been placed on the process, on how we get to the goal, rather than on the goal itself. This gets to the core of this government's approach to environmental protection. We see our appropriate role as setting tough environmental standards and seeing that those tough standards are met. With its provision for standardized approvals, Bill 57 provides an excellent example of how the ministry is approaching its new role.

This was certainly discussed at length during the review on regulatory reform headed up as Responsive Environmental Protection, and certainly has received a lot of support from the environmental community as well as from the industrial community.

Standardized approvals represent an updated approach to the certificate of approvals process. The Environmental Protection Act currently states that anyone proposing an activity that would result in discharges of contaminants to the environment requires a certificate of approval from the ministry. A similar provision exists in the Ontario Water Resources Act for water and sewage works.

As it now stands, you need formal approval from the ministry whether you are a big steel company or a street corner hot dog vendor. I sometimes have to wonder why the previous government didn't require a certificate of approval for people who smoke outdoors. Indeed, they are releasing some contaminants into our environment and I really don't know why they overlooked that particular area. This is what we referred to in the past as "in your face" government. The guiding philosophy is that government knows best.

That certainly is not the view of this government. We don't feel the need to get involved at every step of the process. We don't have the expertise or the resources. We don't believe in dictating to those who know their business better than we do. How they are to meet their requirements is indeed their business. Our business is setting standards and ensuring those standards are met.

With standardized approvals, and being nicknamed now -- you'll probably see it in the future -- the acronym SAR, standardized approvals regulation, we propose that certain classes of activities be able to proceed without the need to apply for the certificates of approval. These activities would instead be required to meet strict environmental standards prescribed by regulation. This will lead to consistency. The present system of developing the regulation for each application can lead to a very patchwork type of program across the province. Only activities with predictable and minimal environmental impacts will be considered for standardized approvals.

Bill 57 provides the necessary regulation-making authority, but it does not specify which classes of activity can use the standardized approvals process. This will be decided later through full consultation with both industrial and environmental groups. Broad public consultation will be conducted through the Environmental Bill of Rights registry.

While we haven't determined the activities to be covered, I'd like to offer the following example of how standardized approvals would work. Rather than going the certificate of approvals route, a person opening a small paint spraying operation would instead be required to meet rules established in a regulation for small paint spraying operations. Rather than creating in effect an individual regulation for every single instance, Bill 57 calls for one general regulation covering every instance of a particular type of activity.

This does not in any way compromise the environmental safeguards enjoyed in this province. It does, however, deliver the product -- environmental protection -- more effectively and more efficiently.

It simply means that rather than using the certificate process, we impose similar or stronger conditions through regulation. This is also good news for industry as it eliminates the red tape that's associated with the certificate of approvals process and it very commonly comes up in discussions with industry: "Do you really need all of the red tape that's out there? We want to protect the environment but we don't have the time or the resources to go through the kind of red tape that's been introduced by previous governments." It's been a barrier to job creation in this province. It will also allow environmentally responsible projects to proceed without undue delay.

The public benefits because it does not affect the ministry's ability to ensure compliance or prosecute those who fail to comply with the rules set out in regulation. For the ministry, it will enable staff