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

January 28, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L152 - Tue 28 Jan 1997 / Mar 28 Jan 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF

NORTHERN ONTARIO

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GOVERNMENT FAXES

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

EDUCATION FINANCING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

CHILD POVERTY

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

WORKFARE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

USER FEES

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CLASS SIZE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

RENT REGULATION

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to address my remarks today directly to the Minister of Northern Development, who'll be the guest speaker at the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce annual meeting Wednesday in Thunder Bay.

Last week the minister came to northern Ontario to sell us on the merits of dumping new financial responsibilities on northern municipalities. Although the minister acknowledged that northern communities will have higher costs than revenues when these sweeping reforms come into place, he tried to persuade the northern media that special consideration was being given to our communities through a northern investment strategy designed to deal with the inequities in the north because of the clearly higher service costs we face.

The problem: There was and is no northern investment strategy. The minister himself, when pressed, referred to a strategy that "will eventually happen," that he "assumed" would happen. The minister's staff the next day were quoted as saying they weren't sure there would be something distinct for the north.

Despite the minister's acknowledgement of our higher costs in the north, he admitted that we'll simply be competing for the same pot of money that the rest of the province's municipalities will be fighting over, a pot of money that, we now learn from the Premier, the municipalities may have to cofund.

All of us concerned with those massive restructuring changes are terribly concerned about them, and the minister and I can certainly disagree over the effects of these reforms, but the minister should not insult all of us in the north by inventing a northern-specific angle that simply does not exist. These are serious issues we're facing, and we need the facts and a minister who will deliver on a commitment he's publicly made.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Down in Niagara people are outraged, incensed and, I tell you, fearful as well about the attack this government is posing on health care in Niagara region. Among the hospitals to be shut down by Harris and this government are the Hotel Dieu and the Port Colborne General, and I tell you, they're not Mike Harris's hospitals to shut down.

These hospitals, like hospitals across Niagara region, were built brick by brick by working people and retirees, as they donated money by subscription from their paycheques, $5 and $10 a week, money they couldn't afford at the time but money that they were prepared to invest in health care in their community so that their children and grandchildren could enjoy the benefits of a universal health care system.

Let me tell you, the folks in Niagara know what the shutdown of Hotel Dieu and Port Colborne General means. It's going to mean reduced access to emergency services. It's going to mean people dying on their way to an emergency room outside of their community. It means reduced access to intensive care unit beds. It means reduced access to operating room facilities. It means reduced access to hospital beds. It means reduced funding to deliver health care services. It means reduced choice for health care services. It means increased donations required for reduced access to care, and there's been no assessment of how quality will be affected.

I tell you, this government is not going to be tolerated in Niagara region. As it continues to attack and dismantle health care in Niagara, the people of Niagara are fighting back by the thousands.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): More and more of my constituents are contacting me to say they support the many dramatic and positive changes the government is making to the public sector in Ontario. However, my constituents are also wondering, as I am, where the leader of the official opposition stands. It is not clear where he stands on the government's initiatives, nor is it clear why he has not offered any constructive alternatives of his own.

In an editorial on January 12, the Toronto Star asked, "Do Liberals, NDPers Have an Alternative?" On January 17, the Toronto Star asked again, "Instead of playing procedural games, why don't opposition members debate the contents of government bills and examine them in legislative committees where witnesses can appear?"

We have seen the Liberals flip-flop on issues. If the leader of the official opposition offered his own views on today's issues, the flip-flops would be painfully evident. The Leader of the Opposition hasn't given an alternative to the reform we have introduced, but he has repeatedly stated that he sees the need to restructure and downsize government, to reduce the number of school boards and to achieve economies in government spending wherever possible. He has even said that if he becomes Premier after the Harris government's tax cut is fully implemented, he will not attempt to reverse the changes. He has also said he would not reverse a unified Toronto.

I must ask, what exactly is the opposition leader's position? Does he have a plan? Has he thought of ways of doing things better for less? Does he truly want to give taxpayers a break?

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STAFF

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): This government's assault on defenceless children continues, this time in the justice system. According to the Law Times, the axe is about to fall on up to 20 civil lawyers working in the Attorney General's crown law office, including seven lawyers whose job it is to take legal action against defaulting payors of child support.

This government cannot even pay out support cheques voluntarily received, to say nothing about pursuing people who aren't paying, and now they plan to erode enforcement even further. The government is firing efficient and capable staff lawyers and is replacing them with commissioned bill collectors and ad hoc freelance lawyers, which not only ends up costing the taxpayers more but will reduce the quality of service in attempting to protect the interests of children.

This stands as another repugnant example of poor planning and government incompetence. What's happening with family support administration in Ontario is symptomatic of the widespread and unnecessary chaos this government is inflicting on our legal system. As Chief Justice Roy McMurtry recently charged in unprecedented criticism of the Attorney General, Ontario's justice system is headed for total breakdown unless the effect of government cuts and inaction is remedied.

We say shame on the Attorney General for imposing a slash-and-burn policy on the Ontario justice system, especially on our children.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Last week, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines came to Sault Ste Marie to make an announcement. That announcement was that this government had absolutely no industrial strategy for northern Ontario.

He also, in that announcement, told the communities and people of the north that if, in implementing this government's strategy, they find that taxes have to be raised and services are diminished, they should blame the municipal leaders and shunned any responsibility for the damage that is going to be incurred. This is an example of the contempt in which this government holds communities and community leaders across this province. But did it surprise any of us? Not at all, because the track record of this minister and his government has been at best dismal and at worst destructive.

They have dismantled the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The vehicle that's left to administer community economic development, the northern Ontario heritage fund, has been literally dormant; we haven't seen a thing. They've been in power now for a year and a half, they've been making promises to northern Ontario for a year and a half, and they haven't spent a penny, not one cent, out of that fund on anything to help the people of northern Ontario as they deal with the very devastating decisions that have been made and done to us over the last year and a half.

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I wish to address smarter government and less spending. Our government is determined to make this a reality in the province of Ontario. Previous provincial governments talked about making necessary changes to allow taxpayers to get better value for their hard-earned dollars. They never followed through. Our government has.

Simply put, where it makes sense for the province to assume responsibility, we have; where it makes sense for municipalities to deliver services, we've made that decision; and where it makes sense for the province and municipalities to share in the funding and in the provision of services, we are ready to fund our portion.

It's funny, even the Ontario Liberal leader has admitted that change is needed. He stated in August 1996, "Ontarians are telling us to retool government, to make it more efficient and to concentrate on what it should be doing and doing it well."

I would like to suggest that his idea, which we're implementing, is being very well received. For example, Ron Carther, president of the Kitchener-Waterloo Chamber of Commerce, stated on January 17, 1997: "It's clear that what the government is doing is stepping back and looking at the fundamental changes in the way we govern. The purpose behind this is to flatten the organization clearly and provide greater value for taxpayers in the province."

Overall, our plan is one that will be more responsive to local needs.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Regardless of a ruling made by the Speaker in this House which was unprecedented in Ontario's history -- this government was held in contempt of the Legislature for its ad campaign -- yet even today the ruling by the Speaker has not dampened the spirit of the Conservative government in continuing to press ahead with Mike Harris ads throughout Ontario.

I'd like to remind the people of Ontario that every time we see the face of Mike Harris in our living rooms, that is hard-earned taxpayers' money paying for those ads, whether it's about education -- please remember the effect on the classroom, that millions of dollars being spent by the Conservative government, your taxpayers' money, is going to feed the ego of Mike Harris.

Instead of listening to the people and realizing what priorities should be, we are closing hospitals thanks to Mike Harris. We lay off nurses thanks to Mike Harris. Today, Frank Bagatto, executive director of Hotel Dieu Hospital in Windsor, announces that Windsor and Essex county is underfunded by $122 per capita compared to the Ontario average. And what do we see in our living rooms? Mike Harris spending your taxpayers' money on a television campaign. I ask the PC Party of Ontario to reimburse Ontario's citizens for every dollar that it is wasting.

PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): It's in this type of atmosphere that I wish to convey the anxiety shared by social services students at Confederation College.

As you are well aware, the government has recently enacted legislation to sanctify, to say, "If you have a BA or an MA you will be recognized as a professional, but if you don't, if you're one of the many more thousands of people who place the welfare of others ahead of your own -- the welfare of your family, that of your community, that of the province of Ontario -- well, we have little use for you, because by way of regulation we shall dictate, if you wish, by way of recognition for some but more importantly the lack of recognition for others."

The people who don't have the BA, the people who don't have the master's degree in social science, collectively, unanimously, wish to have a chance to be like the others, for they perform the same work, quite often for fewer dollars.

Today they share anxiety, and I share their anxiety. Let's give them a chance to exist.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise in the House today in response to my many constituents in the riding of Scarborough Centre who have called my constituency office to congratulate this government with respect to Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act.

This sensible and overdue initiative acknowledges the need to modernize Toronto's political and economic structures. Businesses, especially small businesses, are excited about the prospect of a strong, united Toronto that will continue to be the growth engine of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Could the members for Lake Nipigon and Oriole come to order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I appreciate that, but I can't hear the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: Thank you, Speaker. This is what Rachelle Wood of the Ontario Restaurant Association has to say: "Our members, especially small business operators, are looking for coordination. They don't want a patchwork of bylaws across municipalities," and they think Bill 103 is a great idea; they support it.

This proposed initiative will result in better services at lower costs for the people of Toronto. This government has shown leadership and resolve in reversing the tax-and-spend policies of previous provincial and municipal governments. To those municipal politicians who are currently engaged in a costly campaign to save their own jobs, I say: "Stop wasting taxpayers' dollars and accept that the people of Metro Toronto and Ontario are fed up with spendthrift politicians and governments concerned only with preserving the status quo."

Interjection.

The Speaker: I know the member for Oakwood is standing on a point of privilege. Let me just see if there are ministry statements. I'd rather get through that before we deal with it. Ministry statements? None? Okay, point of privilege, the member for Oakwood.

GOVERNMENT FAXES

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Mr Speaker, as you know, last week you ruled that the pamphlet distributed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs was in contempt of the Legislature --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I think what we must do first off is clear that exactly up, if you could take your seat. I would ask the opposition, at least when dealing with myself, that you use that in fact I didn't find the minister in contempt of the Legislature; I found a prima facie case of contempt and there is a big difference.

Mr Colle: Mr Speaker, there was a prima facie case established of the minister being in contempt of the Legislature. As you know, Mr Speaker, your concern was that the wording in the pamphlet seemed to assume in colloquial language that the legislation, megacity, Bill 103, was a done deal.

It seems that the government and the ministry are continuing on the same path of assuming that this bill will be passed no matter what happens. I'll point to a communication that's come out of the faxes that are coming from this government and I'll read you a line from one of these faxes dated January 27. This is four days after your ruling and it's a question-and-answer thing.

It says "Who Does What." The question is, "Metro officials are now saying it will take many years to fully amalgamate Toronto -- much longer than you have suggested." The answer is, "The new united Toronto will be in place by January 1998." So here they are again establishing that this is a done deal. No matter what happens, January 1, 1998, this new united Toronto megacity will be in place.

I bring this to your attention again, Mr Speaker, and that this minister and this government are again in contempt of the Legislature and the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: It would be very helpful if you could send that down to the table.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is this the same point of privilege? Yes? Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: It's similar and it relates to the same matter. In regard to the particular document that the member for Oakwood referred to, I have a copy of a similar document which says, "Do the Math -- Metro Taxpayers Win." There is no cover page to say who this was sent from. It says at the top, "From PGOO." I don't know what that means, whether it means provincial government of Ontario or whatever, but "PGOO."

I would also bring to your attention that when I was visiting Wawa in my constituency on Saturday, a representative of the teachers from Sir James Dunn Public School came to see me and presented me with a couple of other documents entitled "Who Does What," which were faxed to the school, one on January 16 and another on January 22, again with no cover page, not saying who they were from. All it says at the top is "From GMS." I couldn't understand what "GMS" might be until I did some investigating and came to the conclusion that this must be government members services. This deals with property assessment, the farm tax credit, red tape and so on.

Speaker, what I want to point out to you also is that I heard this morning on CBC Radio a report that included some quotes from Mr Paul Rhodes, the senior media adviser to the Premier in the Premier's office. In that media report Mr Rhodes acknowledged that he was responsible for this, what was referred to as a mass faxing program, and he indicated that he didn't know why there were no covering pages, which I understand are a requirement of the CRTC, the federal regulating body, and why it didn't say from whom they originated, but he said he was going to investigate it.

He said that the government, or he, had contracted out this mass faxing program and that he and other members of the government, the Premier's office and so on, didn't have any control over it, but he was going to look into why, apparently, this private firm to which they had contracted out this faxing program hadn't complied with the CRTC regulations.

I refer you to the transcript of the report. It says: "An official of the CRTC says the Conservative faxes appear to break them," meaning the federal regulations. "They have to include the name of the sender along with the address and phone number."

For the life of me, I don't know why the government would want to fax this material to Sir James Dunn Public School in Wawa. These were done late in the evening on both the days I mentioned; no covering pages, not saying who they were from and simply saying "From GMS." If it is the government members service, then what Mr Rhodes said on the radio this morning appears not to be accurate; these were not sent out by some private firm contracted to do it but by the government members services, the caucus services, the MPPs services, and they were sent out from a room here in this building --

The Speaker: Thank you. Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I haven't had the opportunity to see the pieces of correspondence alluded to by the members opposite, but my suspicion is that these are pieces of correspondence coming out of government services and I don't believe those pieces of correspondence were the subject of your ruling. I believe the subject of your ruling pertained to correspondence coming out of the government, coming out of the ministry.

I think this is a separate piece of literature, not coming out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, not coming out of any other particular ministry, but indeed coming out of government services.

Notwithstanding that, Mr Speaker, I've given my undertaking, and yesterday reiterated, to the House leader's office to contact all the ministries to ensure that your ruling is abided by. In this particular case, if it comes out of government services, I'd submit that it is a different form of communication, but notwithstanding that, we will have a look at it.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is not an indication that this comes out of government services. I want to make the point that I was not raising this in regard to your ruling last week. I was raising it as a separate matter. It seems to me that if this was sent out by the government members services, the Tory caucus, it was sent out apparently in contravention of the federal regulations, which in my view calls this place into disrepute and therefore is a matter of privilege.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The issue is exactly this: The government, through its members services, can put out whatever it sees fit, I suppose. The issue was that this seemed to be disguised as coming from some impartial source. I think the problem, for my friend the Minister of Environment who is wondering about this, is that it's not identified where it comes from. It looks like it's just some citizen who wants to be fair about things in putting these matters out. I think that's what we're looking at, that it's in violation of the CRTC regulations, and that's where the government in this case is in trouble, I believe.

Hon David Johnson: This is a complete stretch. I don't know if the opposition members are suggesting that you now rule on behalf of the CRTC. I congratulate you on your new appointment and your broader responsibilities.

These are not communications, as I understand it, coming out of the ministries. They do not conflict, as I understand it, with your previous ruling. There's no attempt to disguise anything here. As I understand it, it's legitimate communications from members' offices, as the Liberal Party would do, as the NDP would do. To suggest that somehow you should rule on behalf of the CRTC I think is ludicrous.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party on a point of --

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The government can try to pass this off as trivial. The government can try to say that federal regulations governing communications don't matter, but I think they do matter, and I think they matter for this House. Each and every one of us has the responsibility to obey the law when we try to use government money or taxpayers' money to communicate with people across this province.

My point is this, and I want you to listen carefully, Speaker: If, as we believe, these are coming out of government members services, GMS, and government members services for whatever reason, and we can speculate as to the reasons, doesn't put a covering page on it, doesn't want people to know that they're coming from government members services, want people to think this is somehow spontaneous information, third-party validation of the government's position, the government is breaching those federal regulations. I believe that brings all of us in this Legislature into disrepute.

I believe it reflects on all of us and I think it affects all of our privileges, and that needs to be acknowledged.

Second, I think there is something seriously wrong when the government or government members try to communicate a message to the public and then try to disguise that it is the government members who are communicating that by not putting a cover page on the fax. It's as if the government is trying to use government services, government caucus services, to communicate a political message to the public and then say, "Oh, it's a third- party message; we had nothing to do with it." That in my mind borders on deception, and that in my mind borders on contempt for this House once again and, more importantly, contempt for the people of this province.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The body which the opposition are referring to is the caucus research group. That is funded by this Legislative Assembly. I don't have any interest in controlling what the member for Ottawa East sends out to his constituents. I don't have any interest in controlling what the Liberal caucus sends out to their particular constituents. Quite frankly, it's none of my business. It is their business, it is their research budget, and I'm sure that they would be very angry if we started, as a political party, to interfere with what they said or how they said something or what they said.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): It is deceitful not to let people know who is sending them that tsuff.

The Speaker: Member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Sterling: Quite frankly, it contravenes all of the privileges which I have as a member of this political party. The objection contravenes my right to communicate with people the way I should do.

Mrs Caplan: You have no right to break the law.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Oriole, come to order.

Hon Mr Sterling: If I should break the law, or anybody should break the law, then let the appropriate enforcement authorities take action.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Just say where it comes from, Norm, that's all. Then it will be legal.

Hon Mr Sterling: But it has nothing to do with these people over here as to what I say or what I don't say. In fact, I find it objectionable that another MPP in this place should object to how I phrase something, how I present something. I have never heard that objection in the 20 years I've been in this Legislature, that any member of any party has ever said that another party is presenting material in one way or the other. I think they're wrong. I think they're wrong in terms of attacking the long-term privileges of members of this House by putting this objection forward.

The Speaker: I've got to say, just quickly, I think I've basically heard all there is to hear on this particular point of order. Now I see that there's obviously interest in putting some more on the record. I would ask that you put on the record, please, what hasn't been stated, rather than simply reiterating and getting into a debate about whether it's right or wrong.

Mr Hampton: Just to be clear, we've got a definition here and we've got the problem defined. No one objects to government members wanting to communicate with their constituents or wanting to communicate with the citizens of Ontario at large. The problem here is that I believe the government has clearly breached federal communications laws, and I believe, at the very least, you should apologize for that. I believe that by doing that they have brought this House into disrepute --

The Speaker: With respect to the leader of the third party --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Government members, please. With due respect, I think you made those points very well and very clearly earlier on, and I appreciate that. Any other point? The member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: A brief point here because I just want to clarify. My friend the Minister of Environment and Energy may have misinterpreted it. The issue is that you did not identify where it came from. What you put out as a caucus is your business, but you must identify where it comes from so you don't pretend it's coming from somewhere else.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Very quickly on this point, Mr Speaker, we will be sending you copies of the documents that we have raised and referred to. I wanted to make sure that in all of the arguments you didn't miss the point that some of those documents are headed "GMS," which we believe refers to government members services. In fact, we're asking you to determine whether or not that is the case. And one of the documents -- same document but obviously faxed from a different source -- is headed "PGOO," which we believe stands for provincial government of Ontario.

It may be in your ruling that you would find products of caucus services to fall under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy. You have ruled in that vein before and we understand that may be the case. We raise the question with you, when it appears that a prima facie case could be made that there's been a contravention of federal legislation by a caucus, what actions or remedies are available to members of the Legislature.

But beyond that, if one of the documents has been faxed out by the provincial government of Ontario, presumably through the Premier's office, that raises it to a different purview and it becomes a matter of this House. We would ask you to take that into consideration.

The Speaker: Yes, and actually in a lot of respects that is in fact what I was going to surmise with respect to the government services. I will investigate it and I will report back, but let us be clear: On a number of occasions I have ruled that the Board of Internal Economy is the proper place to hear government services issues. With respect to the province of -- I've not heard this particular acronym myself, so I don't know and I will certainly review that one.

As far as federal laws being broken and so on and so forth, I will take it back but I can't offer you much comfort with respect to dealing with those particular rules and legalities. Having said that, I will take the time to review it. But again let us be clear: I have ruled in the past that these issues through government services, members services, properly and duly should be put before the Board of Internal Economy. You all have representation there, we all have representation there and that's where I think they should in fact be.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Now I want to move on. On January 16, 1997, the member for Dovercourt, Mr Silipo, rose on a question of privilege concerning the government's alleged appointment of three individuals to a board of trustees purportedly pursuant to a bill that had neither been passed by the House nor received royal assent. That, on the face of it, was in fact the basis for his point of order.

I appears the essential concern for the member for Dovercourt was not that the bill contained a provision that would give retroactive effect to certain clauses in the bill but rather that the government was acting as if the clauses containing the retroactive provisions were already law. Thus the member for Dovercourt was of the view that the government could act on the clauses containing the retroactive provisions only after, and not before, the bill containing the clauses had in fact become law. I think I've summarized it fairly accurately.

Then yesterday the member for Fort William, Mrs McLeod, rose on a question of privilege to express somewhat similar concerns about a separate incident. The member was concerned about the government's intention to appoint two named individuals to the Education Improvement Commission, a body whose existence hinged on the passage of a bill that had yet to receive second reading. The member indicated that the government's actions amounted to contempt. I am paraphrasing, but I think that was fundamentally the point of privilege. The government House leader spoke to the concerns raised by the member for Fort William yesterday as well.

I did in fact do some research on both these particular cases and previous precedents that had been ruled on by previous Speakers. In my research I came across a December 20, 1989, ruling, which seems very applicable, dealing with a member's concerns that public servants were acting upon legislation that had not yet passed all the steps in the legislative process. In that ruling Speaker Edighoffer stated as follows, at page 273 of the Journals for that day:

"It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly, once that bill becomes law. It goes without saying that if the bill is amended during the legislative process," and I think this is the important part that needs to be dealt with in the ones brought forward, "then the public service must take note and act accordingly."

It seems to me that the thrust of this ruling can fairly encompass the matters raised by the member for Dovercourt and the member for Fort William; that is, that a government may take certain actions in preparation for the possibility that a bill will pass through the Legislative process, that they may act and take reasonable direction to enforce that.

But I do not think the same state of affairs, as it presently exists with respect to those two matters, has developed to the point that a prima facie case has been established on the submissions made by the member for Dovercourt and the member for Fort William, simply because if they do in fact act, as they've done in this case and as in the case in 1989, and the bill is amended or changed, it would then be incumbent on the government to amend and change the action they've taken so that it conforms to the actual legislation that was passed. It doesn't create a prima facie case of contempt.

It may cause a problem for the government at a later date if their bill is amended and they must change their direction at that time.

It may be -- I will say this very clearly and I want all members of the House to hear this particular point -- there is a legal issue involved in this course of action, however, and the Speaker cannot rule on the legality of the provisions contained in legislation or the actions of a government. These would be matters for the courts to decide.

I thank both members for their points of order and their input, I thank the government House leader, and that will be my ruling.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a series of questions today for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. For a couple of weeks now Ontarians far and wide have been telling you that your plans to dump services on to residential taxpayers are going to lead to dramatic increases in property taxes.

You have taken to calling those who disagree with you whiners. Minister, today we've got another prominent name to add to your list of whiners, that of David Crombie of the Crombie commission. David Crombie is angry because after you hired him to carefully consider this issue and after he came up with the best advice he could offer, you ignored it.

I want to quote what he said in the commission report. He said: "We are unanimous in our view that if there is a choice between placing education or health and welfare on the property tax, it's clearly preferable to continue to rely on the property tax to fund education."

That is what he said, and that is what you've ignored. Minister, is David Crombie a whiner or is he absolutely right when he says of your government, "I don't think there's a soul left standing that actually agrees with them"?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the Leader of the Opposition: It's amazing. A couple of weeks ago they were criticizing the government because we were rubber-stamping all of David Crombie's recommendations. Now when we examine the information that has been put forth by Mr Crombie and don't accept it all, they criticize that.

Just what has Mr Crombie recommended? Mr Crombie recommended that social services be delivered at the local level. We agree with that, and that's being done.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I want the opposition to come to order. I want to be able to hear the minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Crombie recommended that the province assume 100% of the cost: let the municipality deliver it, and we just sign a cheque and send it out. We don't think so. We agreed that the services should be delivered at the local level, but there is a strong desire to share the cost 50-50 so that both parties can be responsible for their actions.

Mr McGuinty: Speaker, you may have heard of the story of the soldier named Ike. Ike always marched in a different direction than all the other soldiers, but his father would beam with great pride and say, "Look, mama, everyone is out of step except Ike." This minister looks at his wrongheaded dumping of services, beams with pride and says, "Look, Ontario, everybody is out of step except me."

Minister, wake up. You're the one who's out of step. The Metro board of trade says that your plans are going to lead to business tax increases in the amount of $7,900. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation calls it a shell game and confirms that it's going to raise property taxes. Mel Lastman, the latest, says it's going to hike his taxes by 13%.

Minister, don't stand there all alone. Join the rest of Ontario. Join the growing chorus and admit right here and now you've made a mistake.

Hon Mr Leach: Again to the Leader of the Opposition: Let's just review what the board of trade has said. The board of trade agrees with amalgamation. They want amalgamation and they state that strongly. The board of trade agrees with property tax reform. They agree that the property tax is a mess and it has to be addressed. They agree that education should come off the property tax. They have agreed with about 90% of the recommendations in the Crombie report. What did they not agree with? They said they had a concern with the municipalities picking up 50% of the cost of social services.

We're aware that social services can be volatile. That is why we have set aside $700 million to help any municipality that may have difficulties coping with social services in the future. We don't think they're going to have to draw on that, but it's there if they need it.

Mr McGuinty: I think it's important to understand the genesis for this mess we have to contend with now. The Premier got the cabinet together and said, "We are in desperate need of coming up with some money for our ill-considered promise to deliver on a tax cut." The minister against education said, "Give me control of education and I'll get you a billion dollars." The Premier then turned to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Al Leach, and said, "Al, make it happen, and I don't care what the consequences are." That's why we find ourselves in this mess today.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs perverted a good exercise. It was an exercise in disentanglement and he turned it into an exercise in further entanglement.

David Crombie looked at the scheme and said, "It was like it was done on the back of an envelope." Your government's handpicked head of the hospital restructuring commission said, "It's stupid."

Minister, I couldn't make it more clear: Your dumping of services is wrong; it's going to raise property taxes. Why are you the only person in Ontario, it would seem, who is bent on continuing with this?

Hon Mr Leach: It's very obvious why this government wants to continue with it: because we know it's going to end up with major benefits to the taxpayers of Ontario. We know, as the Premier has pointed out on any number of occasions, that after the transition period, between now and about the year 2000, municipalities will be in a position to lower taxes, not to raise taxes.

These gloom-and-doomsters across the floor, if they would take a little bit of time and review everything from the ground up, will see that by taking a program that's growing by about 5% a year -- education -- off the property tax and asking the municipalities to share in social services, a program that's declining, the municipalities are going to end up ahead of the game.

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

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the same minister. It seems to me that one of the important tests that ought to be applied to government is not so much whether it makes any mistakes, because they all make mistakes, but what it does when it makes a mistake. In particular, does the government plow ahead once it makes a mistake, does it ignore the consequences or does it have the integrity to admit it was wrong and go back to the drawing board?

Minister, it's now clear to everyone watching that you've made a terrible mistake. The evidence against it is overwhelming and irrefutable. Business is against this, social agencies are against this, municipal governments are against this, ratepayer groups are against this. My question to you is this: What are you going to do now? You've made a mistake. Everybody knows about it. Are you going to acknowledge it now, and will you agree to go back to the drawing board?

Hon Mr Leach: Obviously if this government had made a mistake we'd reverse it, and if we ever make one we'll do that.

My understanding is that the Liberal Party agreed with taking education off the property tax. Actually they should be congratulated. I think it's been about three weeks in a row that they've held that position, which must set a new record for consistency for that party.

Obviously the programs that we're introducing, by separating the delivery of services and giving municipalities the responsibility for services while taking $5.4 billion off the property tax, are going to be of major benefit to the taxpayers of this province.

Mr McGuinty: At first we thought the minister had made an honest mistake, that he'd made an honest mistake and didn't fully understand and realize the implications of his actions. But the fact is, now you're ignoring the forceful objections of bodies like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, the GTA mayors, the United Way, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and now David Crombie himself, your principal architect of this change. That ignoring on your part of those authorities tells me you don't care what happens to property taxes and you don't care if you're lessening this province's capacity to care for its needy.

Tell me I'm wrong. Stand up now and retain what credibility you've got left, back down, admit that you've made a mistake and that you're going back to the drawing board.

Hon Mr Leach: If the Leader of the Opposition would like to me to tell him he's wrong, you're wrong, and it's certainly not the first time either.

Mr Crombie made a number of recommendations on how we should separate the delivery of services to the municipalities and split it with the province. He recommended that the municipalities deliver social services, and we agree with that. He recommended that the province just be a cheque writer for social services, and we don't accept that. We think that municipalities should share the cost equally with the province so that we both have a responsibility that ensures the expenditures are made in a proper manner.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, the only thing longer than the list of experts opposing your scheme is a list of municipalities that say you're going to be responsible for the largest single property tax increase in the history of this province.

Here's the top 10 on today's hit parade of tax hike victims: Peterborough, $13 million in new taxes; Niagara, $43 million; Owen Sound, $2 million; Kingston, $23 million; Sudbury, $105 million; Metropolitan Toronto, $387 million; Hamilton-Wentworth, $121 million; London, $57 million; Haldimand-Norfolk, $29 million; and Brantford, $18 million in new property taxes.

That surely is not what you or the experts had in mind when you set about property tax reform in the province. Minister, will do you as David Crombie says? Will you forget your scheme to dump welfare, long-term care and property taxes and, once more I ask you, will you go back to the drawing board, take your time and get it right?

Hon Mr Leach: If the Leader of the Opposition wants us to proceed if we've got it right, that will allow us to proceed because we do have it right. We're heading in the right direction.

We know that municipalities through the transition period may require some assistance, and we're going to be there to provide that assistance. We have set aside $2.5 billion to aid municipalities through the transition period between now and about the year 2000 to make sure that they're in good shape and able to provide the services that their citizens require. Some municipalities will need assistance; we know that. Other municipalities will be able to assume these responsibilities without any assistance whatsoever.

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I find the answers given by the minister responsible for municipal affairs very troubling, because we really are dealing with the future of our communities and a lot of us don't want to see our cities and towns start to look like some of the cities and towns that we see in the United States, where you've got literally decrepit cores, crime-ridden, drug-ridden and everybody flees to the suburbs.

I want to ask you, Minister, even David Crombie now disagrees with you. Even David Crombie says you're putting municipalities in a position where they either have to increase property taxes or cut health care and social assistance.

When even David Crombie, the person you appointed as chair of the Who Does What committee -- will you acknowledge now what everyone else knows, that your scheme to download on municipalities is going to be a disaster? Would you finally acknowledge that? Because everyone else in this province has acknowledged it.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): When Mr Crombie raised the issue of social services on the taxpayer, we conceded that social services could be volatile and that if we had a downturn in the economy some municipalities may need some assistance. That's why we've set up the social services review fund. If any municipality -- we doubt that's going to happen -- requires some assistance in dealing with a downturn in the economy in their particular community, and needs help with social services, this government will be there to help them.

We don't think that's going to happen. We think that by the time our changes wash through the system by the year 2000, the municipalities will be in a strong position and able to reduce taxes, not increase them.

Mr Hampton: The minister tries to offer up something and hopes it will be soothing, but both the board of trade and David Crombie were very, very clear. They point out that in trying to push social assistance down on to municipalities, you are in effect pushing a broad-scale, income redistribution scheme down on to a very narrow tax, the property tax, and it won't work. They point out that the cost of health care, particularly long-term care, is growing faster than anything.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They know that.

Mr Hampton: We all know that. So your talk about, "Well, we'll do a little over here and a little over there," will not paper over the fundamental cracks. You are digging a huge hole for municipalities, and to offer them a little bit of wallpaper and to say, "This is going to fix it," is nonsense. Even the Financial Post says you don't know what you're doing. Will you admit now that you're wrong? Everybody else in this province sees that your scheme won't work, that it'll be a disaster.

Hon Mr Leach: By the year 2000 there will be $6.2 billion off the property tax. I had the pleasure of paying my interim tax bill yesterday from the city of Toronto --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: As I was saying, I had the privilege of paying my interim property tax bill yesterday from the city of Toronto and on that bill it was noted that 56% goes to education. My property taxes would be reduced by 56% by the province assuming the cost of education from the property tax and bringing it into our responsibility. That gives the city of Toronto 56% of the property tax base to come up with funding to pay for the services we've asked them to assume. I'm quite confident that those fine public figures in the city of Toronto will be able to accomplish that.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Everybody knows except you that the downloading of services is going to cause a major disaster for the property taxpayer. Minister, on this subject Mr Crombie has said that your plan to dump social housing appears to have been "done on the back of an envelope because it just sort of came out of the blue," and that to move $1.4 billion in social housing to municipalities without any discussion, without any preparation for it is just wrong.

Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians, parents and kids, call public and non-profit and co-operative housing home. You know the municipalities will either have to run it into the ground, raise rents or sell off units, and you don't know where your megacity will come up with the $200 million that public housing in Toronto needs in urgent capital repairs.

David Crombie is your guy, or at least he was your guy up to a short while ago. Will you take his advice and drop your ill-conceived plan to dump social housing on the backs of municipalities that get their money from property taxes?

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Crombie is mistaken when he says that this issue wasn't discussed at the panel. There were several discussions that took place with the subpanel on social services.

Mr Marchese: Where were these discussions, Al?

Hon Mr Leach: Those discussions that took place by the subpanel on the Who Does What panel were in the boardroom in my building.

Interjection: Was Crombie lying?

Mr Marchese: Somebody's lying.

Hon Mr Leach: I heard someone accuse Mr Crombie of lying and I want to make sure the record shows that is absolutely not the case. I don't think he should be expected to recall and remember every meeting that took place. However, to get back to the issue of social housing, we were requested by a major municipality in Ontario to transfer to them the responsibilities for social housing.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: To the minister responsible for municipal affairs again: Minister, I wonder if you can tell me this. You have said repeatedly that this is all about disentanglement. You have said that, by pursuing this downloading on to municipalities, this whole scheme, you will reduce waste and duplication. Can you tell me where the disentangling is happening?

As we see it, you're now going to be entangled with municipalities over long-term care 50-50, entangled with municipalities 50-50 on social assistance, entangled on child care, entangled on public health. Mr Crombie says that you're going to be more entangled than ever, that this is going to be less efficient than ever. Can you tell me where the efficiencies are going to come in this entangled mess that Crombie acknowledges you're creating?

Hon Mr Leach: Social services will now be delivered 100% by the municipalities. That is going to eliminate a considerable amount of waste and duplication that's in the present system. Right now, somebody who requires social services can go to the province for some services, to the municipalities for other services; they're not sure who to ask about what. That will now be a far better service for those citizens who require social services.

Education will now become a responsibility of the province -- 100% of the delivery for hard services, for the delivery and funding of transit, for road services, for water and sewers. By eliminating the waste and duplication that existed in the current system, municipalities are going to be able to save a considerable amount of money, and that's all part of the process in having a municipality be able in a few years to give a tax cut.

Mr Hampton: It's interesting to hear this from the minister who has been cited for contempt because --

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think you ruled earlier today, and quite correctly, that the minister has not been cited for contempt in this House, and I would ask you to instruct the member opposite to be more cautious in his remarks.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Durham East. Thank you.

I did stand in my place and actually correct the member for Oakwood and I know the leader of the third party was here or heard the correction. I assume you'll act accordingly.

Mr Hampton: A case was made out of prima facie contempt with this minister, so we've heard his comments. Now I think people deserve to hear what David Crombie had to say: "These recommendations entangle social services far more than ever before, health care far more than ever before. How this can be called disentanglement is an impressive stretch" of the imagination.

That's exactly where we are. No one in this province, no one who has looked at public finances with respect to municipal taxes and with respect to the downloading of health care and with respect to the downloading of social assistance sees that there's any efficiency here at all. All they see is you pushing large costs down on to municipalities. You know that municipalities won't be able to handle it through the property tax. They'll either have to raise property taxes or cut the services.

Why don't you come clean? Everybody else says you have no clothes. Why don't you come clean and admit that your scheme is nothing more than an effort to push the costs of these services down on to municipalities and force --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: Perhaps the leader of the third party should start looking at the costs we're taking off of the property tax. Obviously we're transferring some costs down to the municipalities, the costs of the hard services. We want to share the cost of social service delivery. But we are taking $5.4 billion next year off the property tax. That number will increase to about $6.2 billion by about the year 2000. Those tradeoffs are going to make the municipalities stronger. It's going to eliminate a lot of the waste and duplication that exists in the current system and it will allow municipalities in the very near future to be able to reduce property taxes, not increase them.

Mr Hampton: The minister can give this line all he wants. I'll read you some of the headlines today: "Crombie Blasts Tories on Welfare," "Crombie Criticizes Transfer Method: Social Services Plan Called a Mistake," "`Disentanglement' Plan Is Seriously Flawed," "Ontario Tories Tangled Up in `Disentanglement' Strategy."

No one believes you; absolutely no one believes you. People know that what you are downloading on to municipalities in terms of health care costs, in terms of social assistance costs, in terms of policing costs, in terms of all the other costs you're downloading on to municipalities is going to put municipalities across this province in a desperate situation. They will have no choice: Either they cut those health care services, cut those important community services, or they raise municipal property taxes. All this so that you can give your wealthy friends a tax gift.

Minister, will you finally admit you are wrong? Will you admit, as everybody else knows --

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that the programs we're introducing are going to work.

The member opposite keeps talking about all of the services and the cost of services that are going down; he never, ever takes into consideration the cost of education coming off the property tax -- $5.4 billion, 56% of the tax bill in the city of Toronto, 71% of the tax bill in Mississauga off the property tax. That gives a huge window of property tax room for the municipalities to assign the costs of those services that we're asking them to take over.

I can only repeat that we know the municipalities are going to be stronger; they're going to be far better off. There's going to be a lot of waste and duplication eliminated, and again, property taxes should be able to be reduced by the year 2000.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, come to order.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to help them out.

The Speaker: I appreciate your trying to help them out, but you know what? You're not helping them out. I appreciate your assistance.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, I thank you for your assistance too but I wish you'd come to order as well.

New question, member for Oakwood.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: It seems that the only people who agree with you that this will not cause a property tax explosion are the people who are issuing these junk faxes. The mayor of North York, for instance, is saying your scheme to dump welfare and public housing on to taxpayers is going to cause nothing short of a national disaster. Your own hand-picked David Crombie said: "`We had no discussions on social housing. I don't know of any report on social housing. I don't know of any public discussion on social housing,' Crombie told the Star.

"`It was like it was done on the back of an envelope because it just sort of came out of the blue. To have social housing moved off (to municipalities) without any discussion....'"

Minister, how can you not listen to Crombie, to the board of trade, to the mayor of North York who says taxes in North York are to go up $400 per house?

Hon Mr Leach: I addressed that question a little earlier. There were discussions with the Who Does What sub-panel on social housing. Everyone knows that the federal Liberal government has, I believe in their throne speech, indicated that they want to get out of the social housing business. We agree with the federal government in this instance, that municipalities are best equipped to deliver social housing. They originally were the deliverers of social housing, and we think they would be best equipped to do it in the future.

We have just started discussions with the federal government. Social housing, as we've all stated, is a very complex issue. We know that it's going to take several years to work out the agreement and we are going to work with our partners in municipal government and the federal government on that.

Mr Colle: I think saying municipalities are best able to provide for social housing is like saying you want to take us back to the 1920s and 1930s, and that's what the minister is doing.

In terms of what the numbers are, your junk faxes are claiming that Metro is going to gain $405 million. You've got the Metro chairman and the board of trade saying that Metro is going to be in the hole $378 million, that taxes in Metro are going to go up $7,900 per business, $350 per home. How come the junk faxes you're releasing only give your side of the story? Where do you get this information from?

Hon Mr Leach: For the member for Oakwood, I'll respond to his editorial comment on social housing and point out to the Liberal Party that it was their federal Liberal cousins who have initiated the transfer of responsibility for social housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Parkdale, I'll hurry up. Yes. I'll do my best. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: To deal with the social housing issue again, we know that it's going to take a long time to work out that program and we've always said that. It's very complex. It takes three levels of government right now to maintain an apartment building, and that just doesn't make any sense.

What we want to do is have the responsibility for maintaining and looking after social housing at the level of government that's best able to provide it. That is the municipal government. We agree with that, the federal government agrees with that and the municipalities agree with that.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. The minister's colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, has made a great deal of the transfer of education from the residential property tax. Last night in east-end Toronto more than 350 people came out to talk about the government's proposed changes in the Ontario education system, a meeting that didn't have the benefit of the presence of the minister or anyone from the Ministry of Education and Training.

We know that the minister has indicated that there may be more cuts in education funding in 1998. Parents in Metropolitan Toronto want to know if they're going to lose up to $2,000 per child that they spend now above the provincial average, which supports classrooms, junior kindergarten, excellent language programs and other programs in this city for students. Can the minister alleviate these parents' concern? Will the minister commit today that per pupil spending in Metropolitan Toronto schools will not change when the provincial government has complete control over education funding?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm glad to have the member raise the question in the House today because I think that where there is any misunderstanding in Ontario we'd like to address that. I was very pleased to make an announcement that will not only end waste and duplication in the bureaucracy that surrounds education, that will not only focus spending in the classroom, but will also for the first time have the province take the senior responsibility for funding the education needs of every student in the province.

I've said very clearly time and time again, and I'm pleased to repeat today, that the commitment of our government is to meet the needs of every single individual student across the province regardless of their circumstances. We will commit the funds that are necessary to do that, because we are committed to student achievement in this province, to lifting student achievement from the mediocrity that has been the case in the past to excellence, to take our students to the top of the class. We will do that.

Mr Wildman: Through that rhetoric I guess the answer was yes, that he cannot commit that there will not be cuts in the funding once he takes control. It would be helpful, I suppose, if the minister would be willing, as was my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, to attend such a meeting and talk to the people and let them know what he intends to do. It's not just in Metropolitan Toronto; it's across the province. I've been to London and Cobourg.

In all these communities people believe that come 1998, when the provincial government has complete control over education funding, the minister and this Conservative government will take the opportunity to take up to $1 billion further out of education in this province. Will the minister guarantee today that there will be no further decreases in educational funding for students in Ontario during this government's term of office?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I've already had the pleasure of announcing some time before Christmas that we will have stable funding for the next year in education and I have committed very clearly to changing the funding method. Perhaps the member opposite likes the funding method when the allocation for a student's education is predicated on the property value in that student's neighbourhood. I think it's a silly way of funding education. So does everyone else who's ever studied education.

Here's our promise one more time: Our promise is to meet the needs of the students, to meet the needs of every student across this province, because as the member opposite knows, this system needs to be reformed, needs to be changed so that every student's needs can be met. I'm proud that this government finally took that obligation on. Your government would not, sir.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): My question is for the minister responsible for auto insurance and minister for privatization. Before the 1995 election, many of my constituents complained to me about their rising automobile insurance. They kept getting increase after increase in their premiums, despite rate freeze promises from the Liberals and promises from the NDP that no-fault insurance would not increase their rates. This is an important issue for my constituents because many of them need to drive a great distance to get to and from work every day.

The government promised a new auto insurance system which would stabilize rates. Will the minister responsible tell me what is happening today with auto insurance rates?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): As a matter of fact, today I announced that for the first time in four years rates have actually gone down in this province for auto insurance. That's after three years of almost 30% in rate increases, engineered by these people over here in the opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This is an interesting discussion but may be better taking place outside.

Hon Mr Sampson: I'm pleased to say that these rate reductions of 3% over the one year are a result of Bill 59, the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act, which we brought forward in November 1996. We said we were putting Ontarians, the Ontario consumers, the auto insurance buyers in this province, back in the driver's seat and we have.

Mr Tascona: That's good news, but I know my constituents would be interested in some specifics.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to hear the question from the member for Simcoe Centre, and if it takes us 10 minutes, I'm going to hear the question.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): We're pleased to hear it.

The Speaker: I'm very pleased to hear it too, member for Hamilton East, and that's the warning. Any more and I'll ask that you be removed. The member for Simcoe Centre.

Mr Tascona: I'm interested in some specifics. The minister has told us how much the rates have gone down. I would ask the minister to comment on what this means for Ontario drivers and what he plans to do to keep rates stable.

Hon Mr Sampson: Because of Bill 59 the average cost for auto insurance, as I said earlier, has fallen 3% year over year to the end of 1996. That rate reduction, by the way, equals savings of approximately $160 million for drivers in this province. I'd like to repeat that this is the first year-over-year decrease this province has seen in four years. It's good news for Ontario drivers. It reflects increased competition in this province for auto insurance, which will benefit consumers in the form of better rates for good drivers.

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It has to do with -- I use your own numbers -- the cost to municipalities. Firstly, you have confirmed that you are offloading over $1 billion of expenses. You've taken the education portion off and your own figures indicate you have added $1 billion of cost. You then go on to say you have three funds available, but one fund is not available to cover any of these costs under these circumstances, by your own admission; that's the social assistance fund.

The second fund is available only for one-time costs and will disappear, so that fund doesn't come into effect. The third fund you say is a $1-billion fund, but it replaces an existing $666-million fund. Will you confirm what all of this says, and that is, you have added $1 billion of cost, according to your own numbers, and you are going to provide about $335 million of extra revenue for municipalities?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can confirm that yes, this government has set aside $2.5 billion to ensure that any municipalities that require assistance will be able to get that assistance. I can confirm the numbers he has quoted: $700 million for social services in the first instance; $800 million for any municipality that may require upgrades to infrastructure that is being transferred to them; and $1 billion which does consist of the current municipal support grant and an additional $350 million which will be available on a permanent basis to provide assistance to any municipality that may require it. The member is correct in his mathematics.

Mr Phillips: Just to confirm then, the social assistance fund is not available, will not be available to municipalities unless there's some unforeseen economic circumstance. You've offloaded $1 billion of cost. None of that money is available. You're also confirming that the four-year fund is gone -- after four years it's for one-time costs only -- and has nothing to do with the $1 billion. You've confirmed that. The third thing you've confirmed is that the $1-billion fund is not $1 billion. You're subtracting $660 million.

Just to be absolutely clear, because today you have confirmed that neither of those first two funds apply and that you are going to add $335 million for the municipalities to pick up $1 billion of cost: Isn't that why the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is telling you that you've added $380 million of cost, that you're going to drive residential property taxes up 15% because you've added $1 billion of cost, and you have just admitted today you are providing municipalities with about $335 million of revenue to cover an added $1 billion of your cost? Will you confirm those numbers?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm glad, I'm very pleased that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has admitted that municipalities will not have to draw on that $700 million for social services funds. I'm sure they won't either. The $800,000 for infrastructure improvement is our commitment to municipalities to ensure that when we ask them to assume the costs of certain road transfers and hard services, that will be brought up.

Why do I think the $1 billion we're setting up will be sufficient? Because of situations like this, where the city of Brampton pushes for a tax decrease. The quote is, "We're at zero with our budget now and we are confident that we will be able to reduce taxes." That's why that amount of money will be sufficient.

CHILD POVERTY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Your federal, provincial and territorial counterparts are meeting today and tomorrow to discuss the proposed national child income benefit. You talked about that yesterday in this House, and I was quite disturbed by your comments. You said that some of the options "would actually mean we would be lowering our welfare rates in Ontario in order to try and match this benefit from Ottawa."

You were paraphrased in the newspaper recently, saying something similar, in the Toronto Star on Saturday. They quoted you as saying that Ontario isn't interested in child benefit unless the federal government provides enough additional help that Ontario won't have to "dip once again into the pockets of families on welfare."

Minister, I agree with your sentiment that we want the federal government to propose a program that is a meaningful program, but I have to ask you, are you serious? Are you actually telling us that your government, the government that's managed to find $5 billion for a tax break, can't do something for poor children without taking money from the poorest of this province?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question today. Later this afternoon I'll be going to meet with the other social service ministers and Mr Pettigrew, our counterpart from Ottawa, to talk about how, as all the governments in Canada, we can indeed have an integrated child benefit that will help address the concerns of children in poverty. The difficulty of course, as you will appreciate, is how we can do that in a way that actually gets that money to those people who need it.

There are a number of options on the table, and one of the administrative challenges in those options is that it calls for provinces to potentially decrease the welfare rate that certain people on welfare are getting in order to have Ottawa top it up. Maybe all in the wash that might help, but surely there has to be a simpler way that we can help support children in poverty.

Ms Lankin: I have a lot of problems with the federal Liberal government, believe me, but I do not believe for one moment that they have placed options on the table that would force social assistance recipients to have their benefits cut. We have heard from day one that Ontario has been a problem at the table, that you have been a barrier to getting agreement on this national child income benefit.

Minister, child poverty is real. It is a shame and it is a crisis. Ontario can play a leading role in making this a reality. We need your commitment today that you will join forces with BC and with the others so that we will have a reality of a national child income program, and further, we need your commitment that you won't finance it on the backs of the poorest people in this province. If you can afford $5 billion for the wealthiest, you can find the money to make sure we get kids out of poverty.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to remind the honourable member that it was not Ottawa that came up with wanting to do a child benefit; it was the provinces. It was the premiers of the provinces who instructed the social service ministers that we must work on this. We have agreed. Ontario is not -- I repeat, Ontario is not -- in any way standing in the way of this occurring.

Ms Lankin: It is what everybody says in the room.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, we are chairing the technical working group that is trying to resolve some of these problems.

I wasn't criticizing Ottawa. I am not criticizing Ottawa. They are just as committed to trying to make this happen as all the provinces are, and I certainly look forward to a positive outcome of these discussions as we work through the significant problems over the coming months.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. Minister, critics have stated that the government is not taking enough positive action in dealing with violence against women. I know that with some of the events in the past few months in particular, it's been a very difficult subject in view of the misinformation that has been out in the public and in the media. I'm wondering if you can provide us with the bigger picture on what is actually being done in this regard.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Question?

Mrs Marland: Thank you for your help, member for Lake Nipigon.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): With respect to the question from the member, we continue to take positive steps to address violence against women in this province, which is of concern to everyone in every community and home, and everyone knows that we passed the Victims' Bill of Rights. We continue to identify and to protect the rights of victims of violence and victims of crime, many of whom are women.

We established the victim notification system, providing victims with updates of the offenders' status, and we have established the automated information and referral service, which also is a place where people can phone and ask for advice as to where they can get help. We have expanded VWAP, which is extremely popular in our courts, the victim/witness assistance program, from 13 to 26 sites --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Talk about what they cut.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: -- and we have expanded VCARS, the victim crisis assistance and referral service, from four to 16 sites. There are many others, including the two domestic violence courts --

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

Mrs Marland: I appreciate those answers. It's really significant when the members opposite are chirping in with their editorial comment --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): It's because we don't believe a word she's saying.

Mrs Marland: -- when they had the opportunity to solve this problem. The problem of family violence is not a new problem, and I would ask the minister if she could tell the House what future steps will be taken with regard to the prevention of violence against women, a concern that all of us share and one that is not just a new, recent event.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps I can take just a minute to say how disappointed I am with the remarks of my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who continues to say that no one believes this. There are real people in this community who are getting these services, and they're very appreciative of them. Last week --

Ms Churley: Shame on you. Women know what you are up to.

The Speaker: Member for Riverdale, you're out of order, first, for heckling and, second, for sitting beside the member for Nickel Belt. I would ask that you go back to your seat.

Second, it's very difficult. I'm sitting right here and I had a very difficult time hearing the question from the member for Mississauga South and the minister. If you could come to order, I'd appreciate it.

Hon Mrs Cunningham: I think the question is an important one. Last week we were in Ottawa announcing the first in a series of some 17 projects funded through the community victim initiative programs on behalf of both the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.

These are new programs, and Louise Ford from the Capital Region Centre for the Hearing Impaired should be congratulated for the grant she received on behalf of her work in that centre for over $32,000 to identify and promote videos to help women with the whole issue of sexual assault and violence, and hopefully prevent it, especially those women who are hearing-impaired. I want to thank certainly the ministers for establishing this kind of a project.

Also Lisa Oegema of the Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Renfrew county -- they got some $9,000, and this is another project. A community-wide conference will be held, an information fair on issues of sexual assault. This is a sexual assault centre that is contributing tremendously, I might add, to the largest community, the largest county in Ontario. I will wind up by saying it's sad that we have to use this forum to get our message out, but with the kinds of remarks that the member for Riverdale --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you.

The member for Ottawa West, I'm fully capable of controlling exactly how much time each member has to answer a question, but I appreciate your assistance.

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to return to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The figures are now coming in from --

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Kingston and The Islands, I apologize. There was --

Ms Churley: I'll do it after question period.

The Speaker: You're going to do it after question period? I'm not sorry any more. Member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: It's given the minister maybe a couple more seconds to think about an answer, because he certainly hasn't answered his questions so far. The figures are coming in from all across the province of how your particular swap is affecting municipalities. As a matter of fact, the massive swap of responsibilities you've imposed on municipal taxpayers is falling apart and you're creating chaos in this province.

We've heard that in Brantford, for example, there's an $18-million increase in taxes expected; in Brant county, $8 million; in my own city of Kingston, $23 million. The headline of our local paper screams "Swapped Costs Shock City Staff" -- not the politicians, not a commission, but the staff who are actually doing the work to see how these cuts are affecting them.

As one of the municipal treasurers said, it shows that you, the government, charged ahead with the welfare-for-education swap without having any statistics whatsoever. Why, Minister, are you creating this chaos and showing such contempt for municipalities and for the taxpayers of this province?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): When we started into the Who Does What panel, the goal was to separate the delivery of services. By taking the total delivery of social services and making it the responsibility of the municipalities, that is going to provide a far better, more effective, safer system that will save money. I'm sure that if the municipalities have 100% of the responsibility for the delivery of services, they will be able to find efficiencies in the totally wasteful system that we have at the present time.

I'm confident that all the municipalities across the province that have responsibility for delivery of those services will be able to do that, including the member's home town of Kingston.

The Speaker: Supplementary? Sorry, member for Kenora.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question as well is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It doesn't take a lot to entertain these people over here. Member for Kenora, I apologize.

Mr Miclash: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is also to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, we have many, many municipal leaders across my riding who are extremely frustrated. They're frustrated because back in the election campaign they were told that a Mike Harris government would work closely with them and a Mike Harris government would not dump new taxes on to local taxpayers. That's what they were told.

My office has been calling various municipalities throughout northern Ontario. What are they saying now? Kenora cannot see a tax decrease through this minister's movement. Sioux Lookout: not enough information; not a chance of a tax decrease. Ignace: They're concerned with the labour costs associated with the changes, and again they're looking to having to increase their taxes. Dryden said that they're looking at a 10% tax decrease as just not realistic, as the Treasurer indicated earlier. It's just not possible.

I will be attending the Kenora District Municipal Association meeting in Sioux Lookout on February 7. What I want from you are some facts and figures I can take to them to show what your movement is going to mean to the municipalities of northern Ontario.

Hon Mr Leach: In response to the member for Kenora, I know the Minister of Northern Development and Mines will have a representative at that conference in February. His parliamentary assistant, Mr Murdoch, will be there, and I am confident that Mr Murdoch will be able to provide all the answers that anyone in Kenora riding would care to ask.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let me get some order, please. I want to hear a point of privilege from the member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on a point of privilege. I was unable to get the exact words of the comments made by the minister responsible for women's issues in response to the question from the member for Mississauga South. She said something to this extent in response, that she had to stand in the House to get the truth out because of the kinds of things the member for Riverdale is implying. Perhaps you can review the Instant Hansard later, but she very clearly, in my view, suggested that I was lying and telling untruths to the people of Ontario, and I know that is against the rules of the House.

Further, I would add that everything I say to the people of Ontario about this government's agenda on the cuts to services to women in this province is the truth, and I resent very much having this minister using the kind of propaganda she does in this House to convince women that she's not cutting services, to use that to imply that I am lying.

The Speaker: I appreciate your point of privilege, and I'll tell you, I did not hear the minister say that and I am not far from the minister. I apologize, but it was rather loud. I can only ask that if the minister did say it, she can withdraw it, or ask her whether or not that is what she said. I put it to the minister at this point in time.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Quite the contrary, I was responding to the remark, "Nobody believes you, Dianne." That's all I was responding to. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: As far as I can say, I didn't hear the comment and the minister said it wasn't that way, so that's basically as it is.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Mr Patten and Mr Phillips exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made on the standing committees:

On the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr Crozier for Mr Conway; on the standing committee on estimates, Mr Bartolucci for Mr Cordiano, Mr Kennedy for Mr Curling; on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mr Cordiano for Ms Castrilli; on the standing committee on general government, Mr Colle for Mr Grandmaître, Mr Gravelle for Mrs Pupatello; on the standing committee on government agencies, Mr Miclash for Mr Crozier; on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mr Curling for Mr Bartolucci, Mrs Pupatello for Mr Miclash;

On the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr Patten for Mrs Caplan; on the standing committee on public accounts, Mr Grandmaître for Mr McGuinty, Mr Lalonde for Mr Kennedy, Mr Patten for Mr Colle, Mrs Pupatello for Mr Crozier; on the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr Gerretsen for Mrs Pupatello, Mr Kennedy for Mr Sergio; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr Agostino for Mr Duncan, Mr Conway for Mr Lalonde; on the standing committee on social development, Mrs Caplan for Mr Gravelle, Ms Castrilli for Mr Patten, Mr Duncan for Mr Gerretsen and Mrs McLeod for Mr Kennedy.

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

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas TVOntario has been providing Ontarians of all ages with high-quality educational programs and services delivered through television and other media for 25 years; and

"Whereas TVOntario provides universal access to educational broadcasting in the most effective way possible; and

"Whereas TVOntario provides essential broadcast services to communities in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas TVOntario has an extensive community-based advisory network spanning the province; and

"Whereas TVOntario is committed to increasing net self-generated revenues by 15% every year;

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

"To formally commit to the province's continued support of TVOntario as a publicly owned educational network."

I've attached my name to that petition as well.

WORKFARE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition from many citizens of the city of Timmins who petition the provincial government and the Legislature as follows:

"We, the following undersigned citizens, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government has initiated the workfare program; and

"Whereas the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario increased by 57,000 in the month of September 1996 alone, giving a clear indication that there is a need for job creation; and

"Whereas the majority of welfare recipients do want to work and there is no evidence that workfare will create permanent jobs; and

"Whereas we believe workfare will eliminate permanent jobs;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario abandon its workfare program and concentrate on job creation."

I've signed that petition.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition which has been forwarded to me by a psychologist from the Lyndhurst spinal cord centre, Dr Keith Walker, and the petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 47% of all driving fatalities are alcohol-related; and

"Whereas 544 persons died in alcohol-related crashes in Ontario in 1994, the most recent year for which statistics are available, and more than 25,500 drivers were charged with impaired driving in the same year; and

"Whereas 65% of the total convictions for drunk driving in 1994 involved repeat offenders; and

"Whereas every year drinking and driving costs Ontarians $1.3 billion in personal financial loss, medical expenses and property damage; and

"Whereas the existing measures and penalties have failed to deter chronic impaired drivers from reoffending; and

"Whereas driving is a privilege, not a right, and chronic impaired drivers have failed to take their driving responsibilities seriously;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact Margaret Marland's private member's Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Impaired Driving), 1996, or similar legislation, as soon as possible."

I'm happy to add my support to this petition, and I think particularly coming from Lyndhurst lodge, it's a very significant submission from those people who have sustained spinal cord injuries from drunk drivers.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep receiving petitions about the $2 user fee for seniors, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge senior citizens and social service assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled since July 15, 1996; and

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this document.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"Closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"Physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"Treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"As Mr Ross Virgo stated, the Ontario Correctional Institute is a `therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques';

"Research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"A therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Save victims and money by keeping what works open."

I have attached my name to this petition since I know it's in the proper form and will be accepted by the table.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I am presenting a petition this afternoon on behalf of my friend and colleague the member for Don Mills, and although I suspect that the draftsman did not couch this petition in a format that's acceptable to the Legislature, out of respect for those who took the trouble to sign it, I'm pleased to read it this afternoon. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of East York, are in favour of the borough of East York remaining as a separate municipality."

CLASS SIZE

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

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for the riding of Sudbury, limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a class in a school in Ontario; and

"Whereas this limit depends on the grade level of the class; and

"Whereas studies have concluded that there are clear benefits from smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas there is greater student involvement and interaction; and

"Whereas there is improved student performance; and

"Whereas there is the opportunity for greater individualization; and

"Whereas smaller class sizes allow for more varied and constructive education for students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support this private member's bill as it enhances classroom education."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario submitted by the United Steelworkers of America, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Canadian Auto Workers. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly that has been signed by over 1,100 residents in just 72 hours. It reads:

"Whereas the teachers of Lennox and Addington secondary school board have been on strike since December 9, 1996, in this their third strike in the last 10 years;

"Whereas the quality of education for the current school year is damaged beyond repair and the students of the three schools in Lennox and Addington are at risk of losing their school term due to this strike;

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

"To find a resolution to the strike so that they may return to school immediately."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by hundreds of recipients of the family support plan who are still very concerned about the absolute chaos that has resulted in the plan. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

"Despite the Attorney General's continued belief that the centralized family support plan office has cleared up all the problems previously experienced, we, the deserving recipients of this plan, know that the plan continues to operate in a state of chaos and is depriving many of us of the means to feed and clothe our children and in many cases to pay our rent.

"Therefore, we call on the Attorney General to apologize to the people of Ontario, to recognize his mistake and to reinstate the regional offices of the family support plan which allowed us direct contact with people who cared."

I'm proud to sign my name to that petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly. It reads:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to allow a landlord to charge a tenant who moves into an apartment whatever the landlord can get away with; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing; and

"Whereas the government is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws which provide true protection for tenants in place."

I affix my signature to this.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

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

"The Harris government must not be allowed to make any further changes to the workers' compensation and health and safety act. Too many workers die in our province in workplaces; too many get injured. The expected changes include:

"Erosion of the right to refuse unsafe work.

"Workers will be forced to apply to their employer for WCB benefits.

"Employers must decide if the claim is valid..

"Reduction in power of joint health and safety committees.

"Eliminate compensation for certain injuries and diseases.

"Whereas the Workers' Compensation Act is a vital protection for all workers in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act has prevented untold numbers of accidents and saved thousands from illness and diseases;

"We, the undersigned, therefore, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to save our workers' lives and not contribute to the killing of workers of Ontario. The protection for workers must stay and has to be made stronger.

"We therefore demand full public hearings throughout the province of Ontario on the Workers' Compensation Act proposed changes, and no changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, workers' right to refuse and joint health and safety committees."

That's signed by 62 constituents from S-D-G and Cornwall.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I've affixed my signature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions. The Chair recognizes the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I move that we proceed to orders of the day.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 104,

an Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Loi de 1997 visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la

Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for Fort York.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's a pleasure to continue to debate Bill 104 and to expose the real agenda of this Conservative government around the supposed reform that is contained in this bill.

There was a meeting at Clinton Street Public School in my riding yesterday which I attended, where a number of people spoke to the real concerns contained in Bill 104, the real concerns that are not contained there but which are coming very soon. The 60 parents who were there, parents very active and concerned around the education of their children, talked about the agenda of this government having to do with giving less money to public education, in particular to the Metropolitan Toronto public school system.

There's a real fear, and I share it, that what we're going to get from this government is a reduction of general grants from it to most of the public school system in Ontario, particularly Metro and some other major public boards like Ottawa and so on. They are afraid because this government will say it wants to achieve parity between the two public systems that we have, Catholic and the other public system.

They know that the Metro separate school system has less money than our Metro public system, and in order to achieve parity what they will do is take money away from our system and then say to the Metro separate school system: "You are now going to be equal. We will have achieved parity by giving the public school system less and now you, Metropolitan separate school system, no longer have a claim or a case to being underfunded."

That's the real agenda, I argue, and there's more, and I will touch on that in the remaining five minutes.

They have proposed to amalgamate all of the boards in Metropolitan Toronto, where they will have to deal with 300,000 students. The few trustees that remain will be divided across great wards, and of the $5,000 remuneration that you propose, very few knowledgeable people will get back into the field. Not only that, they know there will be little left for those trustees to do because the Education Improvement Commission will have abrogated all their rights, will have trampled over any remaining rights that the existing trustees will have. In terms of future powers, all of that is unclear. Why would any trustee ever run for that system again?

What they have done very successfully is to attack trustees. What they have done successfully is to find a convenient scapegoat for their problems. The scapegoats for their problems have become the trustees of our school systems, and the other scapegoat is the bureaucrats; there are simply too many. When you add up the dollars for the trustees and you add up the dollars for superintendents and directors, it doesn't amount to much, but this Conservative government makes it appear that this is where the problem lies, and that's what Bill 104 addresses, that everything will be all right.

The real agenda of this government is to take billions out of our system. Some people say $1.2 billion; I argue they want to take approximately $2 billion out of the educational system. I can predict this will happen.

Bill 104 talks about "An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system" and on and on. There is nothing in this bill that will improve education.

The bill establishes, for example, new district school boards and transition processes without any provision for a new role for boards in relation to management of schools and financial decision-making. It's gone. Trustees, new ones, won't have a clue as to what they will be doing. Nothing in this act helps new trustees or those who wish to run to have a sense of what they might be doing. My view is that there is little to do, so you'll find very few people who will run because effectively their power has been taken away.

With no apparent rationale, spouses of school board employees are prohibited from running for office at any board. What rationale is there for that? How does that improve the accountability and effectiveness of the quality of Ontario's education? It does not.

Buried among the Education Improvement Commission's responsibilities is the Harris government's hidden agenda: the establishment of charter schools. We will see private schools in Ontario funded by public boards. That's what this is all about. It's a sad chain of events that is occurring here, nothing to do with accountability and effectiveness but something else.

What this government is after is $1.5 billion or $2 billion. They're going to do it by taking collective rights away from teachers; the Minister of Education has said as much. He will prevent them from being able to strike, taking an essential tool and right that they have had for countless years. That's how he's going to take money out of the system and that's why he's centralizing funding and that's why he's taking the education portion out of property taxes, in order to centralize and control it so that he can give a whole lot fewer dollars through the general grants. That's the real agenda.

Finally, he will go after teachers on their preparation time because there's $1 billion there. If teachers think they can snugly sit at home and not fight this government, they're wrong.

Bill 104 does nothing whatsoever to improve education or accountability. It has all to do with taking up to $2 billion out of the educational system. That's what people need to understand. That is why I urge those who are listening and watching to fight back against the assault on our educational system.

The Acting Speaker: Comments or questions?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I'd like to congratulate the member on his speech. I think the public of Ontario ought to realize that what this is really all about is the government getting control of the education system. It has nothing to do with bringing more accountability to the system.

Once they get control of that system and once they get control of all of the finances, which they have now done or are going to do once all the various pieces of legislation have passed, then in effect the role of the boards of education will be seriously reduced, because quite frankly, there's no longer the accountability factor that the people on the boards of education will have to their local taxpayers, since they will not be imposing any local taxation on them at all.

It really doesn't matter then how big the boards are. As a matter of fact, the bigger you make the boards, the less accountability or the less the ability of anybody within the system of trying to get a hold of their trustee at all will be. I would strongly urge the people of Ontario to watch this debate as it unfolds, because really what has happened is that we've had a swap of $5.4 billion that has been taken off the property tax roll, that's correct, so that the province could get complete control of the education system.

On the other hand, they've loaded on $6.3 billion, mainly in social costs, mainly in health care costs, when just about every expert who has ever done a report on this whole subject matter has agreed over a period of time, not only here in Canada or in the United States but all over the world, that the property tax system is the worst kind of system to use to raise funds for either health care or social services. The main reason for that is the property tax system simply cannot react to any emergencies that may come along in the health care or social system.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I always listen carefully to my colleague the member for Fort York, and I expect that others in the House do as well, from all sides, no matter whether you're a government member or in opposition, because my colleague from Fort York, members may or may not be aware, had eight years of experience sitting as a school trustee in the inner city of Toronto in the west end, and before that was a teacher.

I expect that none of us is going to agree in this House on a lot of things, including this bill, but I do believe that everything the member for Fort York has to say, with his expertise and experience, should not be taken as just rhetoric by the government benches, because the experience that members of the opposition, as members of the government -- I don't know if there are government members who sat as school trustees or not, but I believe it's imperative when we're making such massive changes to our system that we try to listen to each other, and perhaps when the time comes, to make amendments that will improve this bill that, as my colleague points out, is a terrible blow to the kids of this province.

My colleague is quite right.

We all know on this side of the House and the parents and the teachers out there and the school trustees all know what's happening here, that the school trustees are being used as a scapegoat. The government is busy convincing the people of Ontario that millions and millions of dollars are going to be saved by getting rid of school trustees when we all know what my colleague the member for Fort York is saying is true, that what this exercise really is all about is getting $1 billion, maybe $2 billion out of the system, and it's going to be kids in the classroom who will suffer as a result.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to comment briefly on the well-prepared, leadoff 90-minute speech that was given by our two members on a previous day and the completion today. It's quite obvious that what this government is doing, and the member pointed out quite clearly, is taking about $2 billion out of education, which is going to be less for classroom education, and they're saying that they're going to take education off property taxes.

But what they're doing is if they take $5.3 billion off property taxes, in turn they're putting another $6.4 billion on to the property taxes in other services like long-term care, welfare, housing, child care, ambulance services, health care, transit capital, transit operating, provincial highways, ferries, police, farm property tax and libraries. All of these services that property taxes were not used for before -- they were being paid for by the provincial government -- are now going to be dumped on to the property owners.

I know that most of the mayors and reeves throughout my riding -- and I'm sure it's the same thing in Toronto and a lot of the other ridings -- are very upset. I have an

article here from the mayor of Kapuskasing: "Kap Mayor Upset by Restructuring from the Province." He feels that the Mike Harris led government is in total disarray and is doing whatever possible to cut the deficit and balance the budget on the backs of the property owners right across this province, and it's going to be a nightmare for some of the municipalities, towns and cities within Ontario that do not have the resources to be able to -- they don't have the manpower. They've cut down to the bare bone already, and now they're going to be dumped on with all these services. How are they going to be able to deliver that? I congratulate the member on his leadoff speech.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I too will just say that there is a lot of frustration out there. I indicated earlier today in my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that there's frustration with what he's doing. There's also frustration with what the Minister of Education is doing in terms of northern Ontario.

We were told by Mike Harris at one time during the last election campaign that he would be there to listen to the concerns of northern Ontario, and this legislation and what the member has said about it just shows that he is not.

One school board, Thunder Bay West: That would make any board want to question how closely this government is really looking at what it's doing in terms of a public board and a separate board west of Thunder Bay. Going back to the member's comments, representation on such a board would be very difficult. I believe that a good number of members in the House, members of the government, even the minister himself may not realize the distance factor and what they're asking the new boards of education to do in terms of bringing in representation, in terms of representing the parents, the taxpayers; not only that, but the students who go to our various schools.

The chair of the separate school board was on the phone to me not more than half an hour ago asking many questions about what this will mean in terms of unorganized territories, what this will mean in terms of those people who aren't in the organized municipalities in our region.

There are a lot of flaws in this particular piece of legislation in terms of the aspect from northern Ontario. I certainly hope that both the minister and the government listen to some of those concerns as brought forth by the various board representatives.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Fort York has two minutes.

Mr Marchese: I thank the members for Kingston and The Islands, Riverdale, Cochrane North and Kenora for their comments. There are several things I want to say about this.

First of all, they are effectively killing those voices that have criticized governments in the past, irrespective of which political party was in government. Trustees all over have been an effective voice in keeping funding to education at the levels they should be. They are effectively killing those voices by making sure that trustees who are there don't run again, for a remuneration of $5,000.

They are effectively killing parental involvement, which was driven by the energies of trustees who wanted parental involvement because they knew that education improves for their children when parents are involved. In many boards of education it was through the work of trustees that we got parental involvement.

In my view what we have done in the Toronto Board of Education is legendary. I shouldn't say that no other board has done it, but we have done a tremendous amount of work because of the trustees, and they're killing that as well.

The Education Improvement Commission is a euphemism for a dictatorial superstructure. It has the power to abrogate the rights of parents and trustees, an unacceptable, dictatorial superstructure under the euphemism of Education Improvement Commission. I oppose it thoroughly and I'm hoping the parents will see that its powers are dictatorial in nature and not democratic at all.

I urge the separate school system and the teachers of that system to rally together with the teachers of the public school system to fight a common enemy, and that's this Harris government wanting to take $2 billion out of education.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to rise and participate in the debate on Bill 104 in the Legislature. I've enjoyed the comments of the member from the other side.

I'll take some time today, first of all, to correct the record for the information of those listening today. I participated in the debate on the first day of second reading, and I made a comment and perhaps some of the viewers phoned and said they weren't certain of exactly what I meant. I would refer to the Hansard of January 21 on page 6415. On request from members in the House to name the boards I was speaking of or referring to, I made reference to the director of the Durham Board of Education, Mr Grant Yeo, and the director of the Northumberland and Clarington Board of Education, Mr Dick Malowney, both of whom I have a great deal of respect for.

My comments of that day were of a broader nature, but really I was referring to their being in total agreement, as far as I was concerned with speaking to them, with the boundaries that had been decided by the minister in the restructuring of the boundaries. In fact, I have it on good assurance that both directors are working with their partners to ensure that the transition to the new school boards of Peterborough, including Peterborough with Northumberland and Clarington, is moving along and they are having meetings.

But more to the point, if we bring up the debate on Bill 104, I think it's important to remind the viewers that it's

An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee this transition to the new system, providing for certain matters relating to the election in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

This is the bill and I think the viewer today is being done a service. I think you have to look at this also as a partnership. Taking the funding of education off the municipal tax base has long been a problem and I believe the province is now taking full responsibility. By taking full funding responsibility they're taking the full respons