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

September 23, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L234a - Tue 23 Sep 1997 / Mar 23 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

GREATER PETERBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

EDUCATION FINANCING

ERNIE LAROCQUE

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

ONTARIO HYDRO

OPERATION CLEAN SWEEP

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

VISITOR

EDUCATION FINANCING

PAY EQUITY

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

CHARITABLE GAMING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

LAKEVIEW NURSING HOME

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

PETITIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

TUITION FEES

AMBULANCE SERVICE

COURT DECISION

TFO

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

BEAR HUNTING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

TFO

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

COURT DECISION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

The House met at 1329.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HÔPITAL MONTFORT

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'aimerais porter à l'attention du ministre de la Santé deux incidents qui sont survenus récemment dans ma circonscription.

Tout d'abord le cas de M me Thérèse Martin de Rockland, qui a fait un arrêt cardiaque et qui a dû être réanimée à plusieurs reprises par les ambulanciers. Dès son arrivée à la salle d'urgence de l'hôpital Montfort, tout le personnel médical affirmait que M me Martin n'aurait pas survécu si le transport par ambulance avait été prolongé d'une dizaine de minutes pour se rendre à l'hôpital général d'Ottawa.

Le 17 août dernier, M me Cécile Labrèche de Clarence était impliquée dans un accident sur la route 17. Lors du transport par ambulance vers l'hôpital général d'Ottawa, la condition de M me Labrèche inquiétait parce qu'elle souffre d'angine. L'ambulancier qui se dirigeait vers l'hôpital général d'Ottawa a dû modifier son parcours afin de se rendre à la salle d'urgences la plus près, soit à l'hôpital Montfort.

Dans ces deux cas, Monsieur le Ministre, il est possible que les deux patientes ne seraient plus de ce monde s'il avait fallu prolonger le transport par ambulance d'une dizaine de minutes pour se rendre à l'hôpital général d'Ottawa. À la lueur de ces faits, je demande donc au ministre de la Santé de reconsidérer la recommandation de fermer la salle d'urgences de l'hôpital Montfort.

NORTH BAY DAYS OF ACTION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today is the second day of the North Bay Days of Action and organizers say that we are poised to see the largest demonstration ever in northern Ontario on Saturday.

Lana Mitchell, who is one of the co-chairs and who also heads up Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing, expects a large turnout of people from North Bay. As she says: "Our neighbours know at first hand that the community of North Bay has suffered devastating losses. Already, requests to the Santa Fund are far ahead of what they were last year. Food bank usage is increasing every month. This community knows we have to recognize some unpleasant realities. It will turn out in large numbers."

The organizers have also made a real focus on unemployment and job loss in North Bay. Dawson Pratt, one of the other co-chairs, indicates that over 1,000 jobs have vanished because of this government's policies. The North Bay population is 56,000. If a proportionate number of people lost their jobs in Metro Toronto, almost 43,000 people would be jobless.

Pratt has called on the government to set up a select committee or a provincial inquiry to look into the devastation of jobs and the job loss in the Nipissing area. I think we can agree with him and say that if this same degree of job loss occurred in Metro Toronto, an army of 43,000 unemployed would certainly get the government's attention.

We support them in their call for a provincial inquiry and we'll be there on Saturday to show that support.

GREATER PETERBOROUGH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Today I rise to inform all members of this House that the city of Peterborough has declared this week the Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce Week. This special designation is a reflection of the important role the local chamber of commerce plays in our community. The chamber and the community have long had a close working relationship, and this week that partnership will develop further through a series of week-long events.

Computer workshops involving participants of the Student Connection program have been scheduled. Students from Trent University and Sir Sandford Fleming College will provide local businesses with training in how to use the Internet to expand their businesses: Good for business, good for students.

Later in the week, the chamber will host a special business awards reception to honour individuals who have experienced successes in one form or another.

The Greater Peterborough Chamber of Commerce is involved in many positive initiatives, everything from charity fund-raisers to working on initiatives to improve working conditions through the Safe Communities project, which is a program designed to reduce workplace accidents and injuries: Good for workers, good for business, good for government.

I invite all members to join me in congratulating our local chamber of commerce and all its members for the positive contributions they have made to the people of Peterborough.

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today once again to speak about the plight of the flood victims of Essex and Kent counties. On numerous occasions in past months I've stood in this Legislature and asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs to assist the citizens of Essex county who experienced property damage in the millions of dollars.

Once again, I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs why he is sitting on his hands when he knows the situation is critical. The threat of fall storms and high lake levels further damaging breakwalls is now a reality. What is the minister waiting for? Is he waiting for the residents of Lake Erie and Lake St Clair to suffer further property damage?

This situation can be rectified right here, right now, if the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would simply move to reinstate funding to the Shoreline Property Assistance Act. As I've stated on various occasions, we're not talking about a handout. It's not a grant, it's a loan. Why this government has refused to assist the citizens of Essex is difficult to understand. They've offered no explanations for this delay or refusal of responsibility.

Premier Harris, if your minister still refuses to take action, I call on you to personally intervene in this situation in response to the lack of support the shoreline property owners have received to date so that damaged property and breakwalls can be repaired promptly. The citizens of Essex need the help of their government now. Again, I urge the minister to provide assistance that is required immediately.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Yesterday we saw the Minister of Education unveil his latest attack on our school system. He, of course, put it as he usually does, in a context very different than what the reality out there is going to be. He talked about the need and the wish to increase the school year, the need to give parents more authority through the increase and expansion of the rights that they have through the parent councils. But we know and people out there know that what this is all about is cutting another $1 billion out of our school system.

I want to tell the Minister of Education and I want to tell this government that people out there are not fooled by the antics of this government and certainly not by the approach taken by the Minister of Education. Last week I was at a meeting in my constituency at one of the high schools in the area, Oakwood Collegiate. Two hundred parents and students joined the teachers at a meeting to discuss what was coming up, the impending teachers strikes that we may see across the province and certainly here in Metropolitan Toronto.

Overwhelmingly, people there understood that what this minister and this government are doing is an outright attack on our school system. They see that if teachers are forced into a strike position, it will be because the government will have forced them into such an action and it will be because teachers will be defending not their own pocketbooks but the system of education that we have built up in this province, which certainly can be improved but will not be improved and will be wasted even more so by another $1 billion --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

ERNIE LAROCQUE

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm pleased to rise today on behalf of the MPP for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry and East Grenville to pay tribute to one Ernie Larocque, who is a constituent of Noble Villeneuve. Officer Larocque is here in the members' gallery today. He became the first Canadian ever to win the annual international truck inspection competition held this year in Minneapolis, Minnesota. What this means is that Ontario has the best enforcement officer inspecting trucks and buses in North America and, more importantly, he's working out of the ministry office in Cornwall.

Our government has been a tireless advocate for road safety. In the past two years we've introduced legislation that targets unsafe trucks and drivers. However, it's people like Officer Larocque who have to conduct these inspections, making certain drivers have proper papers, that their tires and brakes are in working order. Knowing that we have someone of Officer Larocque's calibre working on our behalf should be a source of satisfaction to all Ontarians.

Before this 20-year veteran of the ministry could compete internationally, he took top spot in both the eastern region and the provincial championships. In Minneapolis he went head to head against 52 other inspectors who had earned the right to be there representing Mexico, the United States and Canada's other provinces. The rigorous testing included three one-hour written exams on vehicles, drivers and dangerous goods, a personal interview and inspections of a trailer, motor coach, cargo tank and a driver and rig carrying dangerous goods.

Back home, on a typical day Officer Larocque --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Although the public members in the gallery are out of order, I'll presume there's unanimous consent to allow them to stay. Agreed? Agreed.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): It has been over a year and a half since the Minister of Health announced that dialysis treatment would be available in Cornwall. Since then, there have only been delays, mixups and confusion.

First, it was revealed that the provider selected was involved in legal proceedings in the United States, launching the ministry into its own court battle. Though the court proceedings are now over, and so supposedly the end of a 30-day waiting period, local patients and their health officials are still uncertain if and when the facilities will be set up.

Residents in my area are asking: "Are there any outstanding legal issues? What are the proposals on the table?" -- and most importantly -- "When exactly will the facility be set up and treating patients?"

The people of the greater Cornwall area, the patients, their families and health care representatives are tired of the minister's standard reply, "as soon as possible," and have requested meetings with the minister or his staff. These answers are needed now. Winter conditions are fast approaching.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Most Ontario citizens are aware there are problems at Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro itself has said that a recovery plan to make its nuclear division safe and efficient will cost up to $8.8 billion.

This Legislature has created a select committee, under the able chairmanship of Derwyn Shea, to examine Hydro's problems and, more specifically, its recovery plan for its nuclear division. In the middle of this activity there appears in our major daily newspapers this morning full-page ads with a very large picture of a very serious Bill Farlinger, CEO of Ontario Hydro.

So while Ontario Hydro has an $8-billion problem, they still have enough money to run a public relations campaign, for what purpose I can only guess.

As well, Mr Farlinger states in the ad, concerning his recovery plan, "I will be outlining that plan to the government's select committee very soon." Here we have the CEO of Ontario Hydro referring to the government's select committee, not a select committee of the Legislature but a government select committee. And you wonder why we wanted an independent inquiry.

Mr Farlinger has already determined that he will be outlining the recovery plan to the committee. Says who? Who invited him? Not me. I guess things never change. Ontario Hydro still think they run the government.

OPERATION CLEAN SWEEP

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise to address the House today regarding a recent event that took place in my riding of Oshawa. On Saturday, September 13, over 25 representatives of the Ontario

chapter of the Canadian Sanitation Supply Association, or the CSSA, participated in Operation Clean Sweep.

Every year on the same weekend representatives from the chapters in each province or region choose a non-profit location to perform their work. Here in Ontario volunteers came from all over the Golden Horseshoe to assist.

This year Operation Clean Sweep was held at the Oshawa YWCA in downtown Oshawa. The YWCA in Oshawa provides supportive housing and recreational programs for women and children in the region of Durham.

This is the third year Operation Clean Sweep has assisted non-profit organizations by donating supplies, physically cleaning entire buildings and providing free supplies and equipment for use throughout the entire year.

With its 170 members in Ontario and provincial chapters in Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Atlantic Canada, CSSA provided volunteers and participated in this year's Operation Clean Sweep.

One of the youngest of the volunteers at the Oshawa YWCA event was little three-year-old Taylor, who worked as hard as she could for this year's project in Oshawa.

I would like to thank the Canadian Sanitation Supply Association and its dedicated volunteers for stepping up in our community and making a valuable contribution, as well as all those who participate in events such as these in all our communities every day.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that Mr Cullen be substituted for Mr Miclash on the standing committee on government agencies; and that Mr Caplan be substituted for Mr Brown on the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Under the provision of the new rules which have been imposed on this Legislature by the government, I gave you notice of the fact that I would be raising an issue. I have to give it an hour ahead of time, at least, so that you have some time to contemplate it, and so the opposition won't raise as many of these motions, I'm told. Anyway, it's in regard to government advertising.

The last time that I rose on this I was dealing with a pamphlet that the government had been involved with involving education. This is the million-dollar campaign where the government is spending a million dollars worth of taxpayers' money to convey what I consider to be a blatantly partisan message. But I'm talking today about the tape of the advertising that everybody sees on television now and that all taxpayers are paying for to the tune of over a million dollars.

The wording of the script of the ad tells me that the Minister of Education, I guess it would be in this case, because it's his ministry that is putting out the ad, would be in contempt of the Ontario Legislature with this advertising campaign because it states that the government is implementing a plan and part of that plan issues regulations dealing with class size. The script clearly reveals that. I took advantage of the opportunity to look at the script of this ad.

Interjection: Oh, oh.

Mr Bradley: The member from Wellington Dufferin-Peel says "Oh, oh," and he's right, because it is rather condemning.

Here's what the actual script of the ad says: "The government is implementing a comprehensive plan to ensure that our children can compete with anybody in the world. It includes more emphasis on the basics, limited class sizes...." If we look at the compendium that comes along with this bill, it makes a point here that it empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to issue regulations related to class size.

The ad conveys the distinct impression to people who wouldn't know that the legislation is not necessary, that somehow this is a foregone conclusion, the government is going to implement this and the Legislature doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.

Earlier you made a ruling and I'd like to quote from that ruling because I think it applies in this particular case. You said the following on January 22, 1997, Hansard, page 6442:

"However, I am very concerned by the ministry pamphlet, which was worded more definitely than the commercial and the press release. To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that `new city wards will be created,' that `work on building the new city will start in 1997,' and that `the new city of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians.'" So you are familiar with that ruling.

"How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and lawmaking process, and in doing so, they appear to diminish the respect that is due to this House." That was specifically dealing with that pamphlet. "I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals -- and that is all they are -- been qualified by a statement that they would only become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them."

You went on to say that "the wording and circulation of the pamphlet appear on their face to cross the line. I say in all candour that a reader of that document could be left with an incorrect impression about how parliamentary democracy works in Ontario, an impression that undermines respect for our parliamentary institutions."

You went on to say, "At this point in my ruling, I want to express some personal concerns about the propriety of public funds being used to advocate, through advertising, a particular position on a matter that is before the House. Let me be clear: I am not speaking here about politically paid for advertising, but rather about funds that are contributed to by every Ontarian, regardless of his or her political view. Personally, I would find it offensive if taxpayer dollars were being used to convey a political or partisan message.

There is nothing wrong with members debating an issue and influencing public opinion; in fact, it is part of our parliamentary tradition to do so. But I feel that it's wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion through advertising that is paid for with public funds."

What I want to zero in on, because I think it applies to this particular case with this particular item that I had in my hand a minute ago, which was a tape -- and I have the tape in my hand again -- is that the minister is in contempt of the House because he has suggested clearly that no approval of this House is required for him to implement the plan. That is clearly what is stated in this particular piece of advertising, and I contend that the member is in contempt of the House for that reason.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, clearly the government and the Ministry of Education have a broad objective of improving the education system in the province of Ontario. I think if we continually get into this nitpicking of trying to find some connection --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I am really sorry I showed up today. I never heard the like of it.

The Speaker: The member for Kenora, come to order, please. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: They seem to be a little sensitive today. If the idea is to grind everything to a halt so that anything that has a remote connection to any bill that's in front of the Legislature --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon David Johnson: There may be a number of ways the class size could be dealt with. One of the ways may be through the bill that was introduced, but there may be other different ways of dealing with the class size. There is no reference that I'm aware of to any bill. There's no presupposing any bill is passed, any particular legislation is passed. I fail to see what the contempt is.

I think the allegation is that the member for St Catharines is indicating that the minister has assumed that some particular legislation is passed when the House has not yet dealt with it, but I fail to see that in what he has stated today. What he stated today includes a broad message from the government in terms of improving education. I think it's clear that class size is a concern to those who are involved in the education system, and there may be a number of ways of dealing with the class size.

The Liberal government, when it was in power, advertised to the tune of $13 million, the NDP $13 million. There is a requirement --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. If both sides of the House would come to order to get this point of order dealt with, I'd appreciate it. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: There is a requirement to communicate to the people of Ontario about a topic as important as education. I'm sure all governments have done this. I'm sure that the previous government did it, that the Liberal government did it. The facts in terms of the advertising communication budget point out that this government does less advertising than any of the previous governments have done over the last 10 years. Nevertheless, there is the requirement to communicate on education, on health care matters, to the people of Ontario.

This is just a regular form of that communication, not presupposing any particular legislation is passed, and I would submit certainly not in contempt of this Legislature.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The government House leader in his intervention has betrayed the very attitude we're concerned about. His attitude seems to be that the processes of the assembly, the introduction and passage of pieces of legislation, is somehow picayune, that by raising concerns we are nitpicking. That's not the case.

The point is, Speaker, that my friend from St Catharines has raised this matter on the basis of a previous ruling by you, as Speaker, with regard to, not the volume of advertising but the content, that is, what does the advertising say? In this particular case, the videotape indicates the government is going to limit class size. The government House leader says there may be other ways of dealing with limiting class size, but --

The Speaker: Order. Can the House come to order. If there are meetings that need to take place, I wish they'd take place outside this chamber -- down at the end, there. Thanks very much. I'm sure it's an important meeting. I'd appreciate it if it could take place in the lobby. It's difficult to hear the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: The government House leader indicated there may be other ways of dealing with class size limitation. That indicates the government House leader isn't aware of the current situation. Currently, matters of class size, pupil-teacher ratio, are subject to collective bargaining between school boards and teachers' federations. The government of Ontario does not have any way right now of limiting class size. The Minister of Education and Training introduced a bill yesterday that would give him the power to limit class size, but that bill has only gone through first reading.

It has not yet come before the House for debate at second reading or for anything further in the process, a process the government House leader seems to think is somehow picayune. We don't believe it to be.

We understand the previous ruling by you, Speaker, that the House is important, that the role of the legislators is important. The fact is the government can't claim to do something that is pending if legislation is passed because the government then assumes the legislation is going to pass and does not take into account the role of the Legislature, which may in fact not pass the legislation or may change it in some way through amendment. So the advertising in our view is indeed a contempt of the process.

The Speaker: I'll take care to review the video now that I've heard the arguments and report back, more likely tomorrow.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. I have a question which goes to your integrity and credibility. Last week you assured parents and students alike that the threat of a strike caused by your attempt to remove or tamper with the right to strike was no longer there, that you had addressed it, and specifically you addressed it through your legislation introduced in this House yesterday. Parents of course hoped that this would mean peace throughout the land, that they wouldn't have to worry about your relationship with teachers because you would have fixed everything up.

I took the opportunity to read some of the fine print in your bill and I noticed on pages 50 and 51 that you have given yourself and cabinet the power to "prevent disruption in the education of pupils." What that means very clearly to me, Minister, is that you have retained for yourself the right to interfere with strikes. You told teachers that wasn't on, but apparently it's back on. Why are you trying to sneak your agenda through?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I believe that if the Leader of the Opposition were to think back for a moment, he'd always find that in the past in this Legislature parties of all three political stripes have had the ability to order teachers back to work when a strike jeopardized the school year of a student. That power remains in this legislation. It remains under a jeopardy ruling currently held by the ERC. This legislation continues the Education Relations Commission in that function.

That will be unchanged by this legislation, because I think all three parties have agreed in the past, and I believe most people in Ontario would agree, that there's not an unfettered right to strike, that that ends with the right of a student to get an education and complete their year of studies. That continues just as it has been.

Mr McGuinty: Let's go over this wording, because I think the exact wording is very important. You say in here that you retain for yourself "in such transitional matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable in connection with the school system reforms of 1997-98, including, but not limited to, regulations providing for such matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable to prevent disruption in the education of pupils."

The reason that teachers were on their feet and were prepared to go to the streets was because you were threatening to interfere with their right to strike during the transitional phase. You said that was no longer on, that everything was okay, to go back to the classrooms and settle down and that parents need no longer be concerned. I've discovered a provision in this bill of yours which does precisely what you said you weren't going to do. Once again, Minister, why are you trying to sneak in something through the back door?

Hon Mr Snobelen: That's simply not the case. We made an announcement some six months ago now that we would have a fair funding model, that we would make sure that we had funding for this transitional year that would protect all of the existing programs and services and the contracts between teachers and their boards in this school year which takes us through the transition period. We obviously have protected those contractual agreements that are in place now.

I said last week, and I meant what I said, that we would not with this legislation -- and it does not -- interfere with the teachers' right to strike. These are the same kind of rights and privileges teachers have enjoyed under previous legislation; however, it has been improved.

If the Leader of the Opposition will read through the legislation, he'll find that we've answered some of the concerns of teachers with regard to bargaining contracts, so they can be done in a more timely manner. We put teachers into the Labour Relations Act, which will help them have their disputes handled in a way that's much more expeditious than the way it has been under Bill 100. I think the Leader of the Opposition will find that we have not only lived up to our commitment of last week, we've actually improved the climate for teachers in the province.

Mr McGuinty: You've got -- and this makes it perfectly clear -- a serious credibility problem when it comes to improving education in Ontario. You said you weren't going to touch the right to strike. The fact of the matter is that you have done that. You said you weren't going to cut classroom funding; you did that. You cut junior kindergarten, you cut special education, you cut adult education in Ontario.

There have been all kinds of media opportunities for you to address one particular fear and concern. You have said that you are intent on removing another billion dollars from education in Ontario. Here is your chance right now, Minister. I want you to stand up and I want you to tell us that you will not remove any further money from education in Ontario.

Hon Mr Snobelen: In direct response to the matter, if there's a credibility gap here, it's with the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Kenora, come to order.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): He could have said yes --

The Speaker: Member for Oakwood, come to order.

As for the funding model, I can tell the member opposite this. It's our intention to have the funding of our students in the province of Ontario meet their needs for a first-class education. We won't tie it to the broken programs of the past that were tied to the assessment of property. We'll tie it to their needs. That's what we're doing right now so we can guarantee a quality education for every student in the province.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to introduce, in the government members' gallery, Lorna Fitzsimons, member of Parliament in Britain for Rochdale and chairman of the PLP Women's Group. Welcome.

New question, leader of the official opposition.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Minister of Health. I understand that he is on the way.

The Speaker: Okay. Leader of the third party.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training as well. Yesterday the minister said his government was taking another step in their comprehensive plan for education. But there's a large hole in this comprehensive plan. It doesn't have a budget. He refuses to make the funding formula available.

I want to ask the minister this: We already know that your cuts to our children's education are hurting classrooms, and your own Education Improvement Commission said to you that any money that is found through restructuring should be reinvested in our schools, should be reinvested in our children.

I want to ask the minister, will you commit today to reinvesting in our schools, in our children's education, any money that is found through your legislative changes or through your school board restructuring changes? Will you commit to that?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The leader of the third party may want us to tie our funding of education to an old system of funding that everyone who has examined it has found wanting, that has made second-class students of some of our young people in Ontario by virtue of their being underfunded, a model that was tied to the property value of homes and businesses in a community instead of the needs of students in that community. That's what the leader of the third party would like us to tie our funding to.

We think we should have a blank page. We think you should start with the expert panel reports on what our students need, what it'll cost to meet those needs, benchmark those needs and then make sure that every student in Ontario has enough funding for a quality education. That's the approach we're taking. The leader of the third party would like us to stay in the old broken funding system. We think it's time to change that to meet the needs of the students in the province.

Mr Hampton: This is bizarre. The government claims to have a comprehensive plan for education, but they refuse to make the funding formula public. They refuse to tell the people, and most of all the children of Ontario, what the funding formula is. Minister, this is not about property tax values; this is about whether you're prepared to make a commitment to reinvest any money that is found in the educational system, to reinvest that money in our children, in our schools. That's what it is, pure and simple; nothing more, nothing less.

We believe you want to take $1 billion more out of our children's education. That's why I put to the question to you. Will you commit that any money that is found through your legislative changes, through your school board restructuring changes, will be reinvested in our children, will be reinvested in our schools?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me make it clear to the leader of the third party what we are doing. It's called "consulting"; it's called "asking the experts in education what it will take to make sure every student in this province has a first-quality education." That's what we're doing. It's a process we have been engaged in for some months now. There are a lot of people working very hard at doing just that. We intend to listen to their advice and we intend to build the right funding formula. In the interim, we're guaranteeing the quality of education for our students. We're guaranteeing that during the transition there'll be no withdrawal of funding. We've already made that promise.

But let me be clear to the leader of the third party: We do intend to cut. We intend to cut administration duplication; we intend to cut politicians; we intend to cut waste and duplication. We intend to increase teaching time; we intend to increase our students' performance. That's the whole purpose of our reforms.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The minister, despite his rhetoric, is not prepared to tell us in dollars what he is going to invest in education. He won't tell us what his budget is. He doesn't have a fiscal plan apparently.

Parents don't want you to take more money out of education than you have already taken. You have already taken too much. Kids are doing without classroom supplies, textbooks. They're having to pay fees to provide the basic supplies for certain courses.

Is the minister prepared to make a basic commitment, without any rhetoric, that whatever moneys are found, if any moneys are saved through the various things he said he intended to do, all the dollars will be reinvested in the classrooms for the students of Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to tell the member for Algoma that I had a chance as late as last night to listen to the concerns of parents. I went to a parents' meeting to listen to what they had to say last night. I think they had the same --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You stole the money, Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Well, you know, I've heard a few people tell me you can't say that, but it has been said in the past by your Premier, accusing Mr Laughren from Nickel Belt of stealing the northern development moneys.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Nickel Belt, I was not suggesting that; I was just pointing out that there were accusations made in the past.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate that half-hearted apology, but I really must insist that you withdraw that.

The Speaker: Let me qualify the withdrawal.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I certainly withdraw.

Hon Mr Snobelen: To the member for Algoma: Parents are concerned that we meet the needs of their students. That's their primary concern. They are very pleased we have curriculum now in place that sets out standards year by year. They are very pleased we have a common report card across the province. They are very pleased we have measures for their student performance so they can find out what is going on.

I made those parents last night the same promise I have made parents across this province, the one I intend to be held to account for, and that is at the end of the day, our funding won't be tied to property value, it will be tied to their students' needs, and we'll have enough funding in this allocation model to meet the needs of their students, not tied to the past but tied to their needs in the future, a system designed for their future and for the future of the province. That's our commitment.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues, and I noted she was here. Is she returning?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): She is scheduled to be here. Go ahead.

Mr Hampton: Minister, two weeks ago the Ontario Court of Justice ruled that your government's attempt to take away $400 million in pay equity payments from the lowest-paid women in Ontario violated the Charter of Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Last week the Premier said something very alarming about this, and I think I can quote him here. He said that the government was moving ahead with implementation of the court order but that Ontario will not be providing funding to the broader public sector employers involved.

In other words, he said the associations for community living and nursing homes and so on that are out there should make the pay equity payments, but the government isn't going to pay them.

I want to read a

section of the judge's ruling for you. He said: "To continue the proxy method of paying pay equity without government funding would send large numbers of the employers of these women into bankruptcy. These employers depend on government funding." Will you commit today that the government is going --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): In response to the leader of the third party, I think he knows this is an extremely serious issue and that we have taken time to consider our alternatives, because all the alternatives are extremely serious with regard to the fact that we have a challenge with the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General and the Premier. We will seriously consider a fair solution.

Mr Hampton: This is about the so-called fair solution that the Premier was talking about in the press. I want to quote the judge again. This is what the judge said:

"To continue the proxy method of paying pay equity without government funding would send large numbers of the employers of these women into bankruptcy. These employers depend on government funding for their very existence. Any increase in pay for these employees must be paid for by the government."

Your Premier is out there saying these community organizations who look after the poor, who look after the vulnerable, who look after people who are developmentally delayed, these people who do good work, who look after the elderly, should just pay the bill, and he refuses to commit that your government will pay. The judge said in his judgement, if that's the route your government follows, literally thousands of these women will lose their jobs and our communities will lose valuable services.

I put it to you, are you going to pay or are you going to force some of these valuable community employers into bankruptcy and force these women --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response to the question once again, I think it would be very unfair to send the message out that anybody is going to force our community agencies into bankruptcy. That is an extremely irresponsible statement, number one.

Number two, I would like to respond in this way. I've already stated that the Attorney General, the Minister of Labour, myself for women's issues, the Premier and others are seriously considering a fair solution.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, I can tell you right now you should read the press clipping. It was your Premier who put that message out there, not a member of the opposition. We're responding to what your very own Premier said. He's scaring people out there. He wouldn't commit to the government funding this.

Let's go back to the judge's ruling and let's be very clear. It says, "It should be emphasized that without government funding, pay equity in the broader public sector could not be achieved or maintained." That's pretty clear. He says that to implement his decision without full government funding for pay equity, "would send large numbers of the employers of these women into bankruptcy."

Minister, let me remind you again we're talking about some of the poorest-paid women in Ontario. We're talking about child care centres, nursing homes, women's shelters and many other community organizations. I want to give you an opportunity again. Stand up and say that at the very least you will fight in your own cabinet to make sure the government stands up for these women and puts the money in towards pay equity.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: The government has to make a decision in this regard. We want to make a fair decision. I think the member knows that we are looking for that decision and I think I've answered the question today. I'm not going to answer on behalf of all of my colleagues in the House at this moment, but you will get a response.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last year almost 20 speech pathologists were eliminated from Ontario schools and school boards. Today parents of children with autism are here in the gallery. You'll see them here in yellow T-shirts. They're cycling across Ontario to raise awareness for their children with autism.

Their children are some of the children we know are falling through the cracks with your cuts to schools. This week, speech pathologists are releasing a report that shows that this year there will be even fewer speech pathologists. These parents are at their wits' end and some, like last week, take their children to Thistletown and say, "We need your help."

Minister, autism is a communications disorder and communication is critical to learning. What will you say to these parents in the gallery today?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'll refer this to the minister responsible for community and social services.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Don't you know about special ed in school? That is pretty disgraceful.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Lawrence, come to order, please.

Mr Cordiano: That is pretty disgraceful.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): These kids don't belong in a classroom. That's what he's saying.

The Speaker: Member for Lawrence, member for Sudbury, come to order, please.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I had the privilege of helping the local

chapter of the Autism Society kick off its fund-raising campaign this weekend. I would like to congratulate them on the work they are doing to raise the profile of this particular disability that some children suffer with.

It's one of the reasons this government was very pleased to announce earlier this year that we will be doubling the number of children who will benefit from speech and language support in the education system. We know and recognize that this is a very important support for those children, especially in those early ages. I'm also pleased to know that the Minister of Education has recognized the need to ensure, in future funding of schools, that special education is included.

Mrs Pupatello: These are more examples of announcements where money does not actually flow into the programs to help these children. You, Minister, who went to help them at a fund-raising campaign, are missing the point. You're the very government that is taking these services away.

In the gallery today we have Claudio Del Duca, a father of two sons with autism. One of his children, Gabriel, is losing his speech pathology in his school this year. It started this September, your Minister of Education cutting speech pathologists from school boards, your ministry announcing money that never flows to actually help the children.

What we need to tell you is that we're talking about real people. We're talking about Gabriel. We believe Gabriel has every right to reach his full potential. Your own government is making these cuts that affect these children. Minister, please, when you respond, talk to Claudio Del Duca. What can you tell him now that your government has taken his speech therapy away?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The first thing I would tell this individual in the gallery is that he might wish to be careful who he listens to in terms what is actually happening out there. This government has not reduced those services.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to reiterate that we have not slashed special education funding; we have not slashed those services. In effect, we are increasing the spending for speech and language. We are putting that money in the community based on the recommendations of district health councils and other community-based groups. I'm sure the honourable member would like us to continue to consult and listen to them. We know that resource must be directed, as much as we can, for intervention and prevention.

One of the reasons this government is taking the authority in school and education that we are is because when school boards sat there and had a choice of what they were going to hit, isn't it interesting that one of the most sensitive services, one of the services that those children need so much --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, member for Hamilton East and member for Oriole, come to order.

Mrs Pupatello: The minister doesn't have it as a mandated service.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, I'm not going to warn you again. Come to order.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We know that service is very important for those children. We have encouraged those school boards to continue to fund that. We are allocating, as I understand it, that special education is something that needs to be included in funding for education and we are continuing to support that service.

The Speaker: The leader's question, the leader of the official opposition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, if there's one thing that people are saying about this government, of course, it is that you're moving too far, too fast. This applies particularly when we're talking about hospital closures in Ontario.

You've closed three in Ottawa -- the Riverside, the Grace and the Montfort -- and you have decided that those are going to close in 1998. Every year 23,000 surgical operations are performed in those three hospitals. Those 23,000 operations are going to have to be performed at the Ottawa General Hospital. The problem is, we're closing those three in 1998 and the Ottawa General Hospital won't have the new facilities built to accommodate those 23,000 patients until the year 2000.

My question of you, Minister, is quite simply: Where should these 23,000 patients go? To those operating rooms which will have been locked or to those which have yet to be built?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): It should be obvious to the honourable member and everyone else that if the construction isn't completed within the time lines as directed by the commission, then the patients obviously will stay where they are.

There's one rule in all this: Overall services are being enhanced, not cut, in the Ottawa restructuring report, as in all the restructuring reports. Common sense dictates that the honourable member should be able to answer his own question, and that is that if the physical space isn't available, then nobody will move anywhere. The commission has set time lines because they want people to aim for those targets, but they are experts, including friends of many of the health care providers in Ottawa, and they realize and will know, as we move forward, what's feasible and what isn't feasible.

The fact of the matter is, to say that people will go into limbo might be the way the Liberals were planning to run the health care system on a $17-billion budget, versus our $18 billion, but that's not the way we're planning it.

Mr McGuinty : This comes as news to the Riverside, the Grace and the Montfort because they've been issued very clear orders. As of June 30, 1998, they are to be shut down, no ifs, ands or buts. They are over, there is no more business and all their patients are to go elsewhere.

You should have seen this coming, Minister. The Ottawa General Hospital in its very own report submitted to your commission said, and I quote: "Even more critical than the capital investment required is the timetable for all this work. We submit that critical care areas such as an expanded emergency department, surgical suite and intensive care unit could not be made available prior to the end of the year 2000."

They told you up front. Why are you putting patient care at risk? You have said very clearly that three hospitals have to be shut down in 1998. The new accommodation will not be available until the year 2000. Once again, where do these 23,000 surgical patients go? Should they go to those operating rooms which have been locked up or go to those which have yet to be built?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is taking a very strange position on restructuring when it is of net benefit to his community. I guess he wants to deny the people of Ottawa the new technologies, the nursing home beds, the long-term-care services. Where exactly are you on restructuring, Mr McGuinty, today? Are you in favour or are you against it? That's what I want to know.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister wants to know whose side we are on, he should understand very clearly that we are on the side of patients. We are on the side of quality health care in Ontario.

Tragically, this is all part of a pattern that has been emerging for some time as a result of this minister's breakneck --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Kitchener, can you come to order, please? And Ottawa-Rideau, can you come to order as well? I can see you there, yes. No matter how far you slouch down, I can still see you. I appreciate everybody is seeking help all the time. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let's come to order, please. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you're going too far, too fast. Everybody outside of this place recognizes that and understands that and you're putting patient care at risk. It's as simple as that. We've heard stories like this in London, Toronto, Windsor and now in Ottawa. By moving too quickly, you're putting patient care at risk. We're not talking about a corporate reorganization here or shutting down a plant in order to retool. You're talking about patients who are going to need surgery; 23,000 will be without surgical units for two years in Ottawa. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Wilson: That is simply ridiculous. The honourable member is making up something hypothetical that I'm sure doesn't come from his community. His community is very much working on restructuring. We're still waiting. We're on the time lines.

I don't know where the question comes from that he made up. First he says we're going too slow and we won't have the operating rooms, the six more operating rooms that Ottawa will get in addition to what they have today. He says we're moving too slow. Now in the final supplementary he says we're moving too fast. He totally makes up the question. It doesn't come from any facts. I'm doing my very best to answer a ridiculous question.

I remind the honourable member that we're still waiting. In all of these restructurings with Metro, London and Ottawa, everyone has till October 9 to answer the 45-day response period the commission put out for community reinvestment, so we don't know what the final tab is yet.

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a question for the Attorney General regarding his continued mismanagement of the family support plan. On May 9, fully five months after this Legislature passed Bill 82, you finally proclaimed part of the bill. You announced that you would begin testing the suspension of driver's licences and that this enforcement tool would be fully in place by September 1997. You said, "The testing of the suspension of driver's licences will begin immediately to ensure a smooth and full implementation in September of 1997."

We have learned that your driver's licence suspension project is not up and running, and when you finally begin testing, you are only going to test 100 drivers who are in arrears. Minister, you broke your promise to women and children. Once again, why can't you do anything right with respect to the family support plan?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm very pleased to hear by the tone of the member's question that she is now in favour of driver's licence suspension. I note that when it was proposed to her government some five or six years ago, it was rejected out of hand, otherwise it would be up and running today and maybe we wouldn't have a billion dollars' worth of arrears in the family support plan.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Totally false.

Hon Mr Harnick: The leader of the third party says, "Totally false." I'd invite the leader of the third party --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, I note that the leader of the third party says that's not true. I invite the leader of the third party to speak to Mothers Against Fathers in Arrears and Families Against Deadbeats and find out from them that they were turned away when they made that suggestion, that it was dismissed out of hand. As a result of that, they ran a family support plan that had no ability to collect money. They didn't even have a plan that considered self-employed people as part of it. They couldn't even get the definition of who had to make payment in the plan correct. Their plan was --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Back in December the parliamentary assistant, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General, promised the people of this province that implementation of the key enforcement tools will begin by the end of January. This Attorney General soon afterwards promised that the suspension of driver's licences will become effective in September 1997.

The only thing the people of this province can rely on from you is your continued incompetence. The fact is, not a penny has been collected in over nine months as a result of the passage in this House of Bill 82 -- not a single penny of moneys in arrears. Just what is it about your incompetence that has prevented you from getting a single enforcement tool, any one of the 10, operative in the course of almost 10 months?

Hon Mr Harnick: I can tell this House that we will be years ahead of that party in terms of implementing real enforcement techniques to the family support plan.

Interjections.

Mr Kormos: If you tell the truth, people won't have to say that, Charlie.

The Speaker: I warn the members for Sudbury East and Welland-Thorold to come to order. I'm not warning you again. The member for Cochrane North.

Hon Mr Harnick: They left a legacy of a billion dollars owing to women and children.

Quite simply, we are developing a plan that will have real enforcement techniques. I appreciate they'd like us to be able to go faster. If they really wanted to go faster, these are the kinds of things they had an opportunity to implement when they were the government. Unfortunately, they rejected it out of hand. They were happy to rack up deficits of $100 million --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort York, would you come to order. I ask the third party members to come to order, please. I can't hear the minister's answer. I've warned the member for Sudbury. I've warned the member for Welland-Thorold. Member for Fort York, come to order.

Hon Mr Harnick: As I was saying, they did not want to implement any enforcement measures that would successfully collect arrears owing to women and children. They were quite content to run a plan that had $100 million of debt going into it every year. They were familiar with --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I'm trying my best to maintain control.

Interjection: It's not very good.

The Speaker: Who said that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Harnick: As I was saying, this was a party that, when they were in government, rejected these things out of hand and were quite content and comfortable to rack up $100 million a year in debt owing to women and children. They were quite pleased to do that and to reject suggestions to really collect money out of hand.

MUNICIPAL ENUMERATION

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Interjections.

Mr Parker: I know the opposition is going to be very interested in hearing this question and the answer to it, so I invite them to pay close attention.

Minister, with the municipal election approaching soon --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Would the opposition please come to order. Thank you.

Mr Parker: There are many subjects I would like to address, but on this particular occasion, I want to discuss an item that was in the paper yesterday. It suggested that enumeration by the mail-in-ballot system was low. That's a concern to me, with the election coming up soon, and I know it's a concern to my friends opposite. Minister, could you explain to the House just what the method is for the mail-in enumeration and what steps this government has taken to improve that system?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to thank the member for York East for his very, very good question. As this House is aware, before every election a mail-in enumeration is done by the Ministry of Finance to update and create a new voters' list. These forms were mailed to 5.2 million households in Ontario between April 28 and May 9 and a very extensive advertising campaign was done at that time to encourage the people in all the municipalities to return their forms and register as soon as possible. The information is then checked by all the municipal clerks. It's provided by July 31 for the clerks to check for errors.

On September 2, the voters' list was made public so people could check to see if their names were on the list. The accuracy of the list is always a concern in an election year and we're encouraging every individual to make sure their name is on that list.

Mr Parker: I've received a few calls from people who are concerned they may not get their material in the mail in time and they might miss the deadline for getting their enumeration on the record. What process is in place to ensure that these people can in fact become enumerated and exercise their democratic right on election day?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank the member for his very good question. Any citizen can check to see if their name is on the list by calling, phoning or going to the office of the clerk of their municipality. If they're not on the list and they are there, they can have their name put on the list immediately they're there. They have to take with them a couple of pieces of identification showing their address, where they live, and also a piece of photo ID so the clerks can have that information and make sure they are on the list.

Even if they don't do that, and we encourage them to do that, any citizen who shows up to vote and their name does not appear on the list can have their name put on that list right up to 8 o'clock on election day by showing, at the polling booth, proper identification. That's a photo ID and something that shows their address.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last Thursday in your statement to the House you told this House you were backing down on major components of your legislation, Bill 136. Although you haven't released the actual amendments you'll be making, you have suggested what amounts to a major rewrite of the bill; in effect, you've gutted the bill. In my opinion the bill will be out of order, because if you are true to your word the heart of the bill has been changed. It will not be the same bill at all and it won't be the same bill this House passed at second reading.

Minister, the right thing to do would be to withdraw Bill 136 and bring forward some new legislation for everyone to see. Will you do so?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would tell you that the bill with the changes will still enable the government to meet its objective, and that objective is to ensure a very smooth restructuring as we go through the changes that are being anticipated for the municipalities and the school boards and the hospitals. We will at the end of the day still be able to provide better service at less cost to the taxpayers. The legislation, Bill 136, will still enable us to move forward because certainly the changes we have made will still retain the essential elements of Bill 136.

Mr Patten: Minister, you are reported in the Toronto Sun, "The hearings will provide people with the opportunity to respond to the amendments we have proposed." Those are your words, that people will have a chance to respond to the amendments. How can they do that if you won't release the amendments before the end of the hearings? No one will know for sure what the wording of your amendments will be.

Based on your statement last week, the two commissions which form the backbone of the bill are gone. The restrictive measures of the right to strike are gone. Fair and impartial arbitration is gone. What's left?

Minister, what are you afraid of? Why won't you table those amendments? You know that if you don't table those amendments before, it makes a mockery of the hearings. What are they going to respond to? They'll have nothing to respond to other than the verbal commitments you've made, with no specifics in terms of legislation. Why won't you table those amendments?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Last week I very carefully indicated the major changes the government was making that would still enable us to reach our objectives. We responded to all the concerns that had been put on the table, not only by the OFL but by some of our other stakeholders. We made it abundantly clear that there was no restriction on the right to strike. We also indicated that the Labour Relations Transition Commission would no longer exist and that its responsibilities, the provisions that commission had, were going to be transferred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

We also indicated that the provisions of the Dispute Resolution Commission were going to revert back to the private sector interest arbitration.

I'm not sure what it is the member doesn't understand. However, it had been clearly enunciated last week and we are continuing to provide information.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last night, North Bay city council passed a bylaw, and that bylaw said no to charity casinos and video lottery terminals for the next year until an impact study is done, a study they say your government should have done before you started forcing these casinos on communities. This is the Premier's home town that has said no to your casinos and your video lottery terminals. We can put that together with communities like Belleville and Barrie and Brantford and many others which have said no.

Your colleague is telling the operators that within 45 days of the announcement of the short list they've got to have their sites in place and it has to be up and operating next year. Community after community is saying no. Shouldn't you back off, ask communities who wants to host these, match proponents with communities, do the proper impact study? Minister, would you approach this in a rational way and stop jamming these things down the throats of unwilling communities?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for her question. It's probably more appropriate to go to my colleague; however, in his absence I will advise the member that we have a list of willing-host communities. All of the charity gaming casinos are going to go to willing-host communities, which only makes sense; those that want them will get them.

As the minister has stated before, the province doesn't intend to force a charity gambling parlour on anyone. If a municipality chooses not to have them, they don't have to have them. If they have them now, the roving, uncontrolled casinos that are creating quite a problem with control, they must be cognizant that they are going out of operation on March 31. So if charities in their communities get money from the roving ones now, they might want to consider very carefully saying no to a permanent one that would have full controls.

Ms Lankin: I heard that threat, and I hope everyone in this province heard that threat. This minister just said that if those communities don't go ahead with these casinos, their charities are not going to get any money. I'm glad it's on the record, because we said that's the threat you're holding over communities.

Minister, community after community after community is saying no to your charitable gaming casinos and video lottery terminals. Why don't you back off this plan you're rushing ahead? You've got proponents lined up whom you've told they have 45 days to get the site, that the site has to be in one of the designated communities. The designated communities are saying no. It's a shambles. You've rushed ahead. You don't understand the consequences of the way you've approached this. Minister, please, rethink this, ask what communities want it, match them up with the proponents, take a rational approach.

Hon Mr Leach: I thank the member for the question. She just repeated everything I said. I said we have a list of willing municipalities that want to have the permanent charity casinos, that have asked for them, and they're the communities that are going to have them. It will be the local council in those communities that votes to say, "Yes, we want a controlled casino." Any community, any municipality, as the minister has publicly stated, that states they do not want one will not have to have one.

In my earlier remarks I was trying to ensure that the communities recognize that the existing roaming casinos, which are totally uncontrolled, will be going out of business as of March 31 next year. I think they should all be aware of that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you recently announced that 218,908 people have stopped depending on welfare since this government was elected in 1995 and over 9,000 people left Ontario's welfare system in August alone. Would the minister indicate how York region's and Durham region's welfare figures compare to the rest of the province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm very pleased that both York and Durham have followed the provincial trend. As you know, we've had a 16% reduction in the number of people trapped on welfare across the province. What we've seen in York is that there's been a reduction of some 25%. That's 3,473 cases of individuals who no longer have to rely on welfare. In Durham region, it's a 21% reduction. That's 4,700 cases who no longer have to rely on welfare.

The honourable member for Windsor-Riverside was objecting to this question yesterday. I looked up the figures for Windsor and I am pleased to tell her that there is a 26%, almost 27% reduction in the general welfare caseloads in the community of Windsor. We are seeing very good reductions across the province and we know those individuals are getting off welfare and into jobs, the majority of them. That's where they want to be and that is certainly what we are doing to ensure that it happens.

Mrs Munro: Considering that both regions have experienced such a dramatic drop in the welfare rolls, can the minister tell us how taxpayers in my riding of Durham-York will benefit and how local businesses can get involved to ensure welfare numbers continue to decline?

Hon Mrs Ecker: While we've seen savings across the province, I am pleased to report that in the community of York they have seen a saving of $4 million in the last two years and in Durham it has been a saving of $10 million. Those municipalities are putting those savings to good use, ensuring that services are there.

We also know that many private sector organizations have been willing to support and want to get involved in our work-for-welfare program. Of course one of the rules is that we do not displace paid jobs; that would be defeating the purpose of this. But they can, and many are, supporting programs that community agencies are doing. My parliamentary assistant, my colleague the member for York-Mackenzie, has been out in the communities meeting not only with the business community to explain to them how they can support it, but also with the community agencies, and we're very pleased with the response.

LAKEVIEW NURSING HOME

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last Thursday afternoon you told the House that we had an obligation in government to pay particular attention to the care of mental health patients in Ontario. With that appropriate observation in mind, I want to ask you a question about the future of the Lakeview Nursing Home in the village of Cobden in the county of Renfrew.

This home was built nearly 30 years ago to provide for a number of adult psychiatric patients who were or had been discharged from Kingston and Brockville. Ten weeks ago you were specifically requested by the current owner of the Lakeview Nursing Home in Cobden to accede to a transfer of that licence from Cobden, Renfrew county, to the Oakville-Burlington area of Halton region.

Minister, can you tell the residents of Lakeview and their families that you will deny that request for the transfer of the nursing home licence from Cobden to Oakville-Burlington?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for Renfrew North for bringing this issue to my attention on several occasions, both personally and in the Legislature and through correspondence. He has also, because he is a very good member of the Legislature -- there's a good reason why he's been here for so many years -- met with ministry staff.

I think he knows or should know very well that it's not the intention of the ministry to see that home closed. Through the good work of the local reeve, Dave Stewart, I think we perhaps have some interested new owners of the home or purchasers who will take over the licences from the current owner. I can assure the honourable member that if arrangements can be made at the local level to keep those licences in Cobden, the ministry will give its concurrence.

Mr Conway: The families and the residents of that home will very much appreciate what the minister has had to say. One of the problems we've had in Renfrew county is a dearth of mental health services. Lakeview is really the only facility we've got in the county that provides for the special needs of these very special needs people, who came to us from Kingston and Brockville.

Minister, can you indicate when you expect to make a decision on the Lakeview matter?

Hon Mr Wilson: We will make the decision, I can assure the honourable member, as quickly as possible after we've seen a proposal. Our hope, his hope I think, and certainly that of the community, is that someone will come forward and purchase those licences, take over the operation of the home. We'll see a new operator. The honourable member is right that many of those residents have special needs. I think seven of the residents have actually lived in the home for about 15 years.

They are long-term residents who do have special needs, and my understanding from the honourable member is that the needs are being met very well in those homes. If all goes well, we hope that someone will buy the home and that the residents won't see any change. I don't think they deserve to be upset after so many years of calling the Lakeview Nursing Home their home.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I listened intently a little bit earlier to your response to a question that you got with regard to speech pathology programs, and you stated in this House that your government was not cutting one dime, not one sou, from speech pathology programs in Ontario. Minister, you're wrong. In our community of northeastern Ontario, in Timmins and across the north, we're losing the entire budget for the dollars utilized to pay for speech pathology programs for healthy kids under the age of six.

Your doing that means that none of the kids in northern Ontario under the age of six is going to have access to any government-funded speech pathology program, and what's worse is that the moneys that you announce for new additions to speech pathology are predicated on our having existing programs. If we lose our program, we're not able to build up on top of it.

Will you please talk to the Minister of Health and fix this problem so we don't lose speech pathology programs for people in northern Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd be quite pleased to convey to the Minister of Health whatever message the honourable member would like.

One of the things we have certainly acknowledged is that speech and language support is extremely important, especially for those children aged zero to six. That's one of the reasons we have increased funding for it. We announced that in the budget. That's one of the reasons that money is flowing through a community-based planning process to those communities. It's my understanding in the joint cooperation on this between health and community and social services that we're actually going to be able to double the number of children who will receive the service. I'd be quite pleased to look into this for the honourable member.

PETITIONS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The issue is arising again. I have a petition to the government of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery;

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for many years to come;

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income;

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities;

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I affix my signature, as I am in complete agreement with the sentiments contained in this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I feel the number of petitions coming from northern Ontario with regard to speech pathology programs as the response I just got from the minister. None the less, we have other petitions, and these are from a number of people in northern Ontario. I have some couple of hundred signatures here, and it reads as follows:

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

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare, long-term care and language-speech pathology for under-six-year-olds;

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

"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 inequalities of access to the people of northern Ontario;

"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 to the government in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to that petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 24 people. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

TUITION FEES

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Conservative government has cut funding to St Clair College; and

"Whereas these funding cuts have caused hardship on senior citizens by increasing the costs for their programs by more than 400%;

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

"To ensure that all college programs, be they education or recreation, remain affordable and accessible to senior citizens."

I join with the hundreds of constituents of mine who have signed this petition and affix my signature to this petition.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

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

"That the Fort Frances ambulance dispatch not be moved to Kenora."

This has been signed by close to 100 residents of Fort Frances and the area. I affix my signature to it as well.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition signed by about 71 of my constituents. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

I'll sign it so that it becomes a permanent record of this House.

TFO

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que TFO appartient aux Ontariens et Ontariennes ;

«Attendu que le gouvernement de Mike Harris a fait fi des sentiments de la population qui veut le maintien de la propriété et du financement public de TFO en tant que diffuseur éducationnel en soumettant TFO à un examen concernant sa privatisation ;

«Attendu que le gouvernement de Mike Harris n'a pas indiqué que la population participerait à part entière à l'examen concernant la privatisation ;

«Nous, soussignataires de cette pétition présentée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, demandons la tenue d'une consultation publique ouverte et honnête auprès des Ontariens et Ontariennes avant qu'une décision sur l'avenir de TFO soit prise.»

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from my home town of Hamilton to the honourable Minister of Environment and Energy and the Premier of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire."

I proudly add my name to those of these citizens.

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to present two petitions, one from Marie McClurg and the other from Gail Laflamme. They read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the rock band Marilyn Manson was permitted to play a concert at the Ottawa Congress Centre on Friday, August 1, 1997; and

"Whereas Marilyn Manson's wilful promotion of hatred, violence, immorality and obscenity has been linked to teen suicides and adolescent crimes across North America; and

"Whereas by allowing Marilyn Manson to perform, the Ottawa Congress Centre, a crown agency with a public mandate, helps to legitimize the band and its unethical messages; and

"Whereas the Ontario Court (General Division) has ruled that Marilyn Manson's music does not meet the

definitions of `obscenity' or `hate literature' in the Criminal Code;

I've affixed my own signature thereto.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition signed by 166 people in Ontario which has been forwarded to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It says:

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy, with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals, and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and to end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all forms of black bear hunting."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario," not like the disgrace of Bills 99 and 136.

I add my name to theirs.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition from my riding signed by about 20 people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has failed to address the root causes of waste, duplication and unnecessary administration in our health care system; and

"Whereas the provincial government has introduced Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, that makes it easier for employers to reduce the number of front-line staff and to lower their salaries and benefits and thus causing further deterioration in quality patient care; and

"Whereas Bill 136 also erodes the democratic process by tampering with collective agreements and potentially interfering with workers' choice of bargaining agents;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, and restructure the health care system in a safe, coordinated and rational way."

TFO

M. David Ramsay (Timiskaming) : _À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

_Attendu que TFO appartient aux Ontariens et Ontariennes ;

_Attendu que le gouvernement de Mike Harris a fait fi des sentiments de la population qui veut le maintien de la propriété et du financement public de TFO en tant que diffuseur éducationnel en soumettant TFO à un examen concernant sa privatisation ;

_Attendu que le gouvernement de Mike Harris n'a pas indiqué que la population participerait à part entière à l'examen concernant la privatisation ;

_Nous, soussignataires de cette pétition présentée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, demandons la tenue d'une consultation publique, ouverte et honnête auprès des Ontariens et Ontariennes avant qu'une décision sur l'avenir de TFO soit prise._

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition sent to me by Carolyn High from the Lakehead Women Teachers' Association, very concerned about Bill 136. I will read the petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will effectively suspend all labour relation rights for municipal, health and school board employees affected by provincially forced amalgamations; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 will hurt average workers in every community across Ontario, including nurses, teachers, firemen and police officers; and

"Whereas the Harris government's bill will decrease the quality of health care as well as the quality of education delivered in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Harris government's Bill 136 was designed to provide the government with sweeping powers to override long-standing labour negotiation rights for workers, including the right to negotiate, the right to strike, the right to seek binding arbitration and the right to choose a bargaining unit;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, support our MPP Michael Gravelle in his opposition to this legislation and join him in calling upon the Harris government to repeal Bill 136 which creates a climate of confrontation in Ontario."

Until we see the amendments, we will continue to not believe this government, and I am proud to sign my name to this petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): "To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas at this time in the province of Ontario it is not illegal for a woman to appear topless in public, and due to the fact that this lack of restriction offends a large percentage of Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to appear topless in any public place except in clearly marked designated beach areas."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I move government notice of motion number 38:

That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay the salaries of civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing November 1, 1997, and ending on April 30, 1998, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

I am pleased to put forward this motion for interim supply, and I would note that I will be sharing my speaking time this afternoon with the member for Scarborough West, the member for Kitchener and the member for Northumberland.

As most members are aware, the motion for interim supply provides the government with the authority to make payments to hospitals, physicians, boards of education, municipalities, suppliers, civil servants and others. These payments are currently being made under the authority of a motion for interim supply which came into effect on May 1, 1997.

The motion for interim supply is required now as the authority under the existing motion expires on October 31st, 1997, and payments cannot be made after that date. Scheduled payments in earlier November include, among others, payments for general welfare, transfers to hospitals, school boards and children's aid societies.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to begin debate on interim supply. Just to inform you, I will be splitting my time with the member for Oriole and the member for Ottawa West.

I want to begin by saying that my leader today used the term "too far, too fast" in describing this government. I would say that what we've seen over the last week or so is perhaps a dramatic illustration of a government that I think is beginning to spin slightly out of control.

I would say that on the basis that we have now seen, with their plan to dump or download on to municipalities -- the government has finally acknowledged that they are dumping about $660 million of new costs on to the property taxpayer. That is the first thing I'd say to the people of Ontario: Recognize that this government has decided to dump about $660 million of costs that the province used to carry on to the municipalities, on to the property tax.

The second thing I would say is that not only have they dumped that on to the property taxpayer, but they've dumped many social programs that shouldn't be on the property tax. Nobody believes social housing should be on the property tax. The government has made a huge mistake here. They have dumped social housing on to the property tax. I think, frankly, it was purely a mistake. Al Leach said, "We're going to get education off the property tax," and didn't add up the numbers. When they found out what the cost was, they said, "If we want to do that, we're going to have to put social housing on to the property tax."

I would say to the public, when you hear us angry about putting social housing on, why is that? David Crombie and the government's own Who Does What panel -- Mike Harris went out and picked 15 people to give the government advice on what should be on the property tax and what should be on the province. What happened? David Crombie said, "Don't put social housing on property tax." But lo and behold, the government's doing that. It's a huge mistake.

I listened carefully to the Minister of Municipal Affairs one day on a radio interview and they said to him, "Should you be putting what's called income redistribution programs on property tax?" Al Leach said, "No, you shouldn't be doing that." Then the interviewer said, "Well, why are you putting social housing on?" He said, "We eventually would like things like that to be part of the provincial responsibility, but for the time being they're going to be on the property tax." That's the second thing where in our opinion the government is spinning slightly out of control.

The third area I want to talk a little bit about is the whole area of health. What we're finding now is that the government is closing an enormous number of hospitals across the province. My leader today had an illustration where in his own area of Ottawa the government has ordered three hospitals to close, and they're going to have to close in 1998, before the remaining hospitals will have constructed the necessary services to absorb the patients from those three closed hospitals. So even if one accepts the government's hypothesis of closing hospitals, the government has a plan that is going to cause chaos across the province, and there is no question of that.

Here in Metro I represent a Metro riding and one of the hospitals is closing November 1, I believe, certainly in November 1997, but there's been no planning of how the patients who are currently in that facility are going to be accommodated. That's the third area of chaos. It's in the health sector, where the government has created a chaotic situation.

I might add that personally I am terribly afraid the government has underestimated the future health needs for our hospital sector. We are heading one way, closing facilities, at the same time as Ontario's population is growing and aging. I can almost guarantee that in two or three years from now we're all going to be saying, "How in the world did we let that happen where we closed all those facilities without looking at the needs?"

The fourth area of chaos is property tax reform. All of us here I think should recognize that the government has embarked on the most massive change in the property tax system in the history of the province, and it has never given us, never given its back bench, never given the opposition, never given the public any indication of what the impact will be.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Zero impact.

Mr Phillips: The member for Scarborough East is, as usual, yapping, as he's wont to do. He loves to talk, he's the world's greatest talker, but no answers, because the government refuses to give any impact studies.

The amazing thing to me is this: We are going to be dealing with a property tax bill called Bill 149. It gives the Minister of Finance unprecedented powers to set tax rates. I always thought the Conservative back bench was opposed to giving that sort of tax power to a cabinet. I always thought the Conservative Party, certainly the Reform element in the Conservative Party, would have been completely, totally against that. But the bill we're going to deal with, I think this Thursday afternoon is the current schedule, calls for unprecedented power in the hands of the Minister of Finance.

We are also going to be asked to approve a bill where over half of the business property tax will be for education. We still haven't found out from the government whether it will be a uniform mill rate across the province or how that mill rate will be set, but the thing we do know is that it is going to cause chaos in our business sector. That's the fourth area.

I'm going through these massive changes. We frequently find, once the government starts on these massive changes, that it hasn't thought them through. I'll give you a couple of small examples. Al Palladini had a smiling face opening the great private sector toll road, 407. I must say it has been an artistic success. It is one of the busiest toll roads in North America. The only problem is there has never been a toll put on it. They have never opened the tolls, and the costs are adding up.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): October 14.

Mr Phillips: One of the ministers says October 14. That's only nine months late.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Look at all the money you've lost.

Mr Phillips: Yes, all the money we've lost. The amazing thing was that the Minister of Transportation said: "We've got a problem. It's so successful we're going to have to keep it free." It's like opening a grocery store and saying, "We've got more customers than we can handle so we're going to have to give the food away until we get a new cash register." It is an embarrassment. It's like the famous boot camp opening. The day Bob Runciman was going to snip the ribbon the prisoners walked out of the boot camp. I just use these examples.

Do you remember Bill 26, the omnibus bill? We call it the bully bill. The government introduced it and said: "We want it passed right away. It's a perfect bill." Then they had to propose 150 amendments to the bill. One of the most amazing sights in all my time here in the Legislature was that the amendments had to be in at 4 o'clock.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: I hear the Minister of Agriculture yip-yapping over here. He was talking earlier about a summer program for students in his office. What did we find? He hired a summer student, and what was he doing? He was out raising money for Mike Harris, with the taxpayers paying the bill. He had him on his staff. As a matter of fact, you had to dial the minister's office to say, "I'm prepared to give Mike Harris 200 bucks."

I just say that because perhaps I can understand these mistakes being made, but it is everywhere. It is a government that says it wants to run government like a business and it's embarrassing the business community, because everything they touch seems to fall apart.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Don't you wish.

Mr Phillips: Don't I wish, he's saying. Unfortunately that is the case. It's a bit like last week where the government said: "We've thought through what we're going to do on this labour bill. We've been talking about this for months." So they introduced the labour bill, and before we have even had a chance to get it to committee, the government says, "We are going to make massive changes in it." And then you know something, Mr Speaker? They say, "We won't tell you what they are, though, until after the public hearings, because we certainly wouldn't want people coming to those public hearings debating what we're going to do with the bill." It is absurd.

I hope the public understands the frustration. The government gives us a bill and says, "Go to a public hearing so people can come and debate and give input into the bill, but I will tell you," the government said just last week, "we're going to make sweeping changes in the bill, but we won't tell you what they are until after you've had the public hearings." It's a sham, it's an embarrassment. What are we doing here? We're going to waste the taxpayers' money.

They are going to pay to have those committees staffed, to have the Hansards done, to have all of that expense going on, having people come from around the province to present, thinking that they are having some input into a bill when they haven't even been told what the major content of the bill is.

Yesterday we had the Minister of Education put out a huge bill on education, and a great public relations exercise, I must say. A lot of money spent on the graphics, and he had his hair combed, always has a good-looking suit on, slick as can be, great speech, believe me, and the signs in behind well-rehearsed. Al Palladini would hire John Snobelen in a minute. He could put him on the used car lot and the car lot would be empty, because this guy can sell anything. But I just say to the public, why are we so sceptical? It is because the minister says, "This is about improving the quality of education, but I'm going to take $1 billion out of education."

I come from a Metropolitan Toronto constituency and I can tell you that one of the reasons Metropolitan Toronto has worked, and there's no question of this, is that there has been a quality of schools in our neighbourhoods. We are blessed in Metropolitan Toronto. We do not have downtown neighbourhoods where people have a concern about their education system.

People do not mind. They like to live in the core of the urban area, and one of the reasons is you can be sure of a quality education in your local schools. That doesn't come cheap. It requires resources, and it requires resources that may not be needed in other neighbourhoods that don't have the same demands put on them. I can guarantee that the future of our major urban centres depends heavily on a quality education system, where people can feel that "Regardless of what neighbourhood I'm in, I can send my child to the local school and be assured of a quality education system."

I know what the government's all about. They want to cut education spending. They've got to do it. The Common Sense Revolution --

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): That pays for the tax cut.

Mr Phillips: My friend says they have to pay for the tax cut, and that's exactly the case. They said, "We are going to cut a billion and a half dollars out of public education and that's what we need to pay for our tax cut." When the public see us concerned about the rhetoric around the education bill, it is because we know in behind it the real motive.

I was duped. I went to one of John Snobelen's press conferences just before Christmas where he said: "We're going to maintain education spending for 1997. We're not going to make any further cuts." I went away feeling fairly good. It was only a couple of days later I got looking at all the numbers and I realized they weren't going to make any further cuts because they had several weeks before announced a $500-million cut for 1997. The reason I raise that is, Mr Speaker, you can imagine the scepticism that we in the opposition and I think many in education have when we listen to Mr Snobelen talking about education. I have a saying: Don't listen to what Mike Harris says, watch what he does.

I go through all of those things. I go through also on the job front. I can remember Mike Harris saying, "Don't worry about youth unemployment." Here we have a document that came out last Friday from the Ministry of Finance. You probably can't see it, Mr Speaker, because it's fairly small print, but it shows the youth unemployment rate for the first eight months of 1997. We're two thirds of the way through 1997.

The youth unemployment rate, 18%; the same period a year ago, the first eight months of 1996, the youth unemployment rate, 15.6%: up dramatically from 15.6% to 18%. By the way, I've looked at unemployment rates for the last 20 years. The only other time it was close to that was in 1992, the heart of the recession. This is like a record level and dramatically higher than the rest of Canada.

As we are being asked here to approve the government's spending, I would just say to the people of Ontario, we have a government that is close to out of control and it is shaking every single major institution in this province. Our hospitals are being shaken to their core. Our entire school system has been taken over by Mike Harris. Make no mistake, Mike Harris now runs the Ontario school system. The trustees are frankly close to irrelevant.

They've dumped on to our property taxes the most sensitive social services and nobody -- Dave Crombie particularly said, "The panel strongly opposes such a move." They were unanimous in the view that they shouldn't do it. The property tax changes are coming without having thought through their implications, and they are going to hit, mark my words, next April in a way that is unimaginable right now.

As I wind up my comments and turn it over to my colleagues, I just say that it was two years and a few months ago that people gave Mike Harris a majority government, and we in the Liberal caucus understand that he has the right to govern. But he doesn't have the right to destroy the very fabric that has been built by parties, including the Conservative Party, over these many years, and we believe that's exactly what's happening.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I would like to thank the people of Oriole for their support, for the privilege of serving them in this assembly. It is an awesome responsibility and I very humbly stand as their representative here.

On September 4 voters in Oriole sent an overwhelming message to this government and to this House. By a two-to-one margin, unheard of in Oriole, nearly 60% of the people in Oriole said, "You are going too far, too fast." They want someone to start to listen to their concerns. They want someone to start to act for their interests.

As I went door to door -- and I know that the Premier was afraid to meet one voter in Oriole, because had he, he would have heard the same messages that I did. There is considerable anger, there is fear, and perhaps the most disappointing thing is there's a great deal of cynicism directed at the actions and inactions of this provincial government.

The issues that the people of Oriole had on a provincial basis but which struck very close to home -- and I will tell you, Mr Speaker, and I will tell this House, that I did not find one family, not one household which has not been affected very strongly by the actions of this government. They told me that they're afraid. They're afraid that the health care they need will not be there when they need it after closing 11 hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto and the resulting increase in capacity at our local hospital, North York General, without the kind of support and the funding that is required.

In North York we're very lucky to have an internationally recognized education system. They see that being threatened. People of Oriole are saying: "Why is this government taking dollars away from our children? Why are they getting rid of a board of education which provides a quality service as recognized by this Minister of Education?"

The third issue that came through very strongly was in relation to Bill 103 and the megacity. The people of Oriole were telling me that this government did not listen to their voices. I had a woman on Hawleaf Crescent literally shout at the top of her lungs that she no longer lives in a democracy, that she doesn't know why she should go and vote when she goes in a referendum, the same referendum that Mike Harris votes in, and it's totally ignored by a government which does not care.

It goes even further because of the proposals, as my colleague had spoken of earlier, to download services which were previously paid for by the province on to the backs of homeowners, of residents. The resulting property tax increases are just enormous and unfair, and it's a burden which the people of Oriole are rejecting. They're saying, "No more."

Finally, an issue which came through so very loud and clear: tenants in Oriole, 50% of the people of Oriole, saying that the only tenant protection afforded in the proposed Bill 96 is that which is in the title, that there is no tenant protection, that this government's actions belie their words. Unfortunately, that is a sentiment that came through. One tenant said to me that they don't know what they're going to do, because she and her three children don't want to become prisoners in their own home. That's effectively what's going to happen with this legislation. I did request, and I renew my call, that the minister withdraw that piece of legislation.

The people of Oriole were saying that they don't believe this government can be trusted to protect their interests, because they've been shunted away. They've been told: "We don't have to listen to you, because you're a special interest. If you're a parent, if you or a family member requires hospital care, if you're a renter, if you're a senior, you are a special interest and we no longer need to listen to you." Time and time again people have said that is offensive. Quite clearly, the people of Oriole are not buying what Mike Harris is selling. You can package it any way you like, but we're not buying it.

We had significant local issues, and I would like to highlight a few if I may. The first issue is Song Meadoway. If you recall, in August 1996 there was a tragic accident. A gravel truck went off a ramp into a townhome, and a young woman, Kim Wong, was killed and her two children injured. Then 364 days later, the Minister of Transportation drops a letter committing to the erection of the barrier. I want to say that the people of Song Meadoway will not sleep until that barrier is completed. In fact, there was a meeting last night, which I attended, where the plans were unveiled.

There is potentially a significant problem, and I hope the government is listening and that they are committed to ensuring that this community is protected and afforded the kind of respect and protection we all enjoy for ourselves and our children.

The Oriole community centre is another local issue for us. It is right in the very heart of our community on Don Mills Road. I can't tell you the number of different programs that are run out of that centre and the fears and concerns because of the downloading this government is proposing, because they don't know if they'll be able to operate this kind of support. They need expanded services, not less. I would very much ask that the government commit to ensuring that we have proper community facilities, that they are staffed, that people can go there and access them. Unfortunately, that is sorely lacking.

Our community in Oriole is incredibly diverse. Certainly men and women, young and old, but I'm told that over 50 languages and dialects are spoken in Oriole. The Minister of Education has spoken about the need to meet student needs and the need to focus spending on students. People in Oriole just cannot understand, after $533 million has been stolen from children, with a further $1 billion to come, just how the needs of their children are going to be met, particularly those in the heritage or, as it's now called, the international language program. I implore this government to affirm and to commit today to full and adequate funding for a very competitive and very important school program.

Seniors are also a very large component of Oriole. The ripoff for drug payment, Bill 96, the municipal downloading forcing either higher property taxes or long-term care on to municipalities, hospital closures: Seniors are saying, "Enough is enough." It's time to start respecting the people who built our community.

It's important that we all reflect on why we are in this place. It is our local needs. It is the people who have built our community, all of the communities across Ontario. Unfortunately, we've had a government which seeks to minimize people, which, as Oscar Wilde once put it, knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Our communities are beyond price. We can in fact have pride in them. We can in fact want to build something and build on top of what we have: not tear it apart, not remove it, but build.

When I have a mother in Oriole say to me, "Will my child not be able to go to junior kindergarten?" because 24 boards of education dropped junior kindergarten in Ontario last year because of the direct decision of this government to make it non-mandatory and to also remove the funding, that's a real concern. I hope the government is listening, and I hope they're going to act, and I hope they're going to give some assurance to the people of my community, who say that we need these programs, that these are important, that they are our future.

My commitment to my constituents, to the members of my community in Oriole, is that I will work, as I have in the past, to bring public openness and public accountability to what happens in this place and what happens across Ontario. If I can relate a very brief example of that, as a former school trustee for our local neighbourhood I ensured public participation in our budgeting process. I said: "Let's take it away from this building. Let's go out and meet people. More importantly, let's listen; let's engage in a dialogue."

We've seen that this government does not want to engage in such a dialogue. It introduces time allocation motions. It says, "We're going to go to four communities." It says: "We're going to pick and choose who we're going to listen to. We don't want you to see the contents of what we're going to be debating." That is a total sham, it is a total embarrassment and it is a disgrace.

The absolute success that we enjoyed as a board of education, because we brought people in, because we opened our doors, because we went outside to seek opinion, because we listened, is a testament to what can happen when people work together. You see, the people of Oriole, indeed the people of Ontario, are resources that we need to tap; they are not obstacles to be overcome.

As I've said, listening is perhaps the key in a dialogue, any dialogue. One party speaks but the other party listens. What I heard at the doors was that people felt that nobody is listening, that nobody cares, that they have something to sell but they don't know if they want to buy. They're receptive. They want to work together.

The people of Oriole have built something very special, and they're saying: "Why is nobody listening when we take the time to get involved in our community on a local level, on a provincial level? Why is the province not prepared to listen to our concerns? Why are they not prepared to act on our concerns?" That's a very sad commentary on the direction this government has chosen.

As I said earlier, the cynicism is perhaps the most disheartening aspect of what I heard at the doors. This is a time in our history when we should be engaging people. Right now, we seem more intent on shutting them out. I must say to all the members of this House, but particularly members of the government, that people will vote with their feet.

To build the kind of province and the kind of communities we have right now, we have brought people together, we have looked for new ideas. No one has said, "I have the source of all ideas and knowledge." Together we can work, but there must be a willingness, there must be an openness, there must be an honest attempt to solicit opinion, to listen and to act. That's not happening.

To the people of Oriole I say very clearly, I will always be there when you need me. Should the need arise, I want to assure my bosses that I will work my hardest, I will try to solve problems, I will always, always respond.

Finally, what is this place all about and what is the purpose of this assembly? It's to build something. It is to build a brighter future not only for our young people but for all of us. When I go to a household and they tell me that their kids, who are college- or university-trained, cannot find work -- when they are told there are all these jobs being created, they ask me where they are. There are résumés that young, bright, energetic, hardworking people have. They want to give them to employers but they can't find them. "Where are these jobs?" they ask me.

I have to answer that, unfortunately, no one is willing to tell us. There's a lot of bravado but very little action and very little result.

We have a problem in the province with 18% unemployed youth, but even worse, I'm told that the percentage of underemployed young people is close to reaching those proportions. This is a significant problem and nobody seems to want to tackle it, nobody seems to want to address it. It is at all of our peril if we do not make the investment in our young people. This is our future. These are our future leaders. These are our future taxpayers. Why won't the government do something? Why the foot-dragging? Why the silence? The people of Oriole want to know.

As I said earlier, we've seen slickness, we've seen packaging, we've seen promises, but they've been broken. Behind the façade there's just a bunch of guys with slicked-back hair pulling the strings. We're not buying it. We are not buying what this government is selling us. You can package it any way you like, but the people of Oriole know the real thing when they see it, and it has not been presented. There has been no attempt to meet the needs of the people of my community.

It is incumbent upon this government and this assembly to say: "Yes, we will make the necessary investment. Yes, we will listen. Yes, we will act on your behalf." I urge the government to say yes to parents, say yes to seniors, especially say yes to tenants. Tell them. Show them. Actions speak louder than words. Make sure that our communities remain vibrant and that we have the ability to grow.

I will shortly turn the floor over to my colleague from Ottawa West. I would just like to reiterate and thank the people of Oriole for the privilege they have granted me. My energy and my dedication are theirs, and I hope I can represent them well in this House.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): As I stand in my place today, I welcome this, my first opportunity to speak to the Legislature, on the matter of interim supply. Interim supply is the motion that permits taxpayers' money to be spent by the government of the day, as approved by the taxpayers and elected representatives in this Legislature.

I was recently elected as the representative for the