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

February 24, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L167 - Mon 24 Feb 1997 / Lun 24 Fév 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE SAFETY

HEALTH SERVICES

TILLSONBURG

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY

CARDIAC SURGERY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRUCKING AND BUS SAFETY

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

FIRE SAFETY

SCHOOL BOARDS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

SCHOOL BOARDS

LABOUR ISSUES

JOB CREATION

CHARITABLE GAMING

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

ABORTION

FIRE SAFETY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WHEEL SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES ROUES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

HOUSE SITTINGS

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today we will be voting on Bill 84, the firefighter bill. We, the Liberal Party, are on record as being opposed to Bill 84.

Today is a very timely day for me to present a gift to the Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, an example of the firefighters from Windsor who work diligently year-round, not just as firefighters in our community but activists in our community. These are individuals who are very concerned about the community at large. This is the calendar they come out with annually. Here's a picture of Glen Zimmerman. This is the kind of thing that residents in Windsor will pay money for, as a calendar, when their funding goes into organizations like the burn unit in Windsor.

The firefighters in Windsor are very concerned about the negative effects of Bill 84. Ontarians are concerned about the opportunity for municipalities to privatize thanks to Bill 84. Residents in Windsor don't want Bill 84. They've had a wonderful organization speaking to Windsor residents, saying no to Bill 84.

It's our job as opposition, it's our job as legislators to tell the government no to Bill 84, and indeed my pleasure to present a Windsor calendar of Windsor firefighters to the Solicitor General.

HEALTH SERVICES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements. The member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I trust you had a pleasant weekend indeed. Welcome back.

The Lake Nipigon Region Hospital Association represents the five hospitals in the communities of Geraldton, Manitouwadge, Marathon, Terrace Bay and Nipigon.

The government announcement to transfer the responsibility of land ambulance service, public health, long-term care and social services to the municipalities is causing the association grave concern. These hospitals are directly involved in the provision of some of these services and have close affiliation with the provision of others.

The introduction of yet another level of government in this regard will be a serious impediment to the coordination of these services. The association is particularly concerned with the reality that municipalities already struggling with serious financial adjustments will not be able to maintain the level and quality of health service which Ontarians require.

They want answers. The hospitals in Lake Nipigon want a guarantee that the proposed involvement of municipal governments in the provision of health services will not impede the efficient function and coordination of care. They want this government to ensure that this proposed involvement will not result in degradation or loss of services in the north, and they also want this government to guarantee a fair and equitable access to health care for all residents in our great province of Ontario.

TILLSONBURG

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I rise in the House today to recognize the town of Tillsonburg's 125th anniversary, which occurred yesterday. Tillsonburg anchors the intersection of the Norfolk, Elgin and Oxford ridings. The driving force behind the incorporation of Tillsonburg was Edwin Delevan (E.D.) Tillson, the son of founder George Tillson. E.D. and his supporters pushed for town incorporation, while Aaron Musselman, proprietor of the Oil Exchange Hotel, which boasted the longest bar and the best cigars in town, spearheaded the campaign for village incorporation. The local paper at that time, the Observer, helped to sway public opinion to town status.

In the first few weeks of January 1872, petitions for town incorporation were laid before the Ontario Parliament. The bill to incorporate Tillsonburg as a town received third reading on February 23, 1872. By 1900, Tillsonburg was known internationally for the many products manufactured by the Tillson mining empire. Acclaimed as the town's first mayor, E.D. Tillson's business holdings included a 600-acre farm known as Annandale. Today Annandale House is beautifully restored and home to a community museum.

Tillsonburg is a vibrant, progressive community with a strong auto manufacturing, retail and tobacco-based economy. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Tillsonburg on this historic milestone.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today to give this government a glimpse of the future. After reading the weekend Star and this morning's Globe and Mail, the government backbenchers can see their political lives flashing before their eyes.

As this government prepares to exponentially increase gambling in Ontario, we're about to see a different kind of revolution begin, a revolution that questions the wisdom of placing some 20,000 video slot machines in every mini-casino, bar and restaurant in every neighbourhood of every community in Ontario.

The only reason this government is willing to increase the number of problem gamblers and addict youth to these machines is greed. This government is embarrassed to give us a clear answer on the revenue it will receive. However, it is clear that these video slot machines alone will produce over $1 billion per year, money that will be sucked out of communities so that Mike Harris can deliver his tax cut; money that could be buying groceries, refrigerators, even cars; money that could be creating jobs, not addiction.

The Mike Harris government can place one sure bet. The backlash against video slot machines that is under way in Alberta will find its way to Ontario soon.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Public reaction to the Conservative government's McGuire report has been swift and harsh. In North Bay alone over 700 petitions and postcards have already been sent to Mike Harris condemning recommendations to reduce the role of sexual assault centres in working with victims of crimes. To date, no one from the community has received a response to this very serious issue.

Amelia Rising Women's Collective: Sexual Assault Centre of Nipissing is pushing this matter further. On Friday I met with the coordinator, a counsellor and a board member of Amelia Rising in North Bay. I was overwhelmed by the need which the staff and 26 volunteers are trying to meet. The waiting list for individual and group counselling is over six months long. This centre and the survivors want their MPP Mike Harris to finally take a stand. They want to know if he will protect or abandon the clients who need support.

Staff and volunteers have collected over 900 newspaper articles from across the province which reported on violence against women. Some 103 appeared in the media during January 1997 alone. These women are illustrating the magnitude of the problem in a graphic way. They know that implementation of the McGuire report will only heighten, not end, this violence. I am sending these articles, which I have with me today, to Mike Harris. Perhaps this pressure will finally prompt a response from him. If not, another 700 letters were sent from North Bay today to him at Queen's Park. It's time the Premier took a stand in favour of women and survivors in his own riding of Nipissing.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

The current system is riddled with needless waste and duplication. Our government has committed to end years of overspending and overtaxing by the Liberal and NDP governments. We have acted.

This is what Diane Francis had to say in Maclean's magazine: "Mike Harris and the Tories are to be applauded for undertaking the most intelligent re-engineering of government to date in Canada, perhaps North America.... It will save taxpayers at least $500 million over the next three years."

To the Liberals and NDP practising old-fashioned political opportunism, I say that the taxpayers of Metro will not be fooled by your doomsday predictions. When your policies consist only of opposing everything this government is trying to do, the taxpayers are not fooled. You had the chance to stand up for Ontarians and you didn't.

Most Ontario residents know there is too much unnecessary duplication in government. People know it's not common sense to have seven different sets of rules, seven different sets of administration and seven sets of local councils debating issues when only one will do. The current patchwork of local rules and regulations does not work. A unified city of Toronto will put an end to the confusion.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): There's something incredible happening in the committee hearings on the government's education bill. It would be incredible if what was happening was that the government was actually wanting to hear the presentations being made. It would be incredible if they were listening to the concerns and were ready to revise their legislation in light of the concerns heard. But that's not what's happening.

What is happening, and it is incredible, is that this government is doing its best to control the presentations to do as much damage control as it can to protect its legislation. They are shutting out more than a thousand citizens who want to make their views heard here in Toronto and they are intimidating those who are making their voices heard.

This concerted effort to try and silence opposition started with the Minister of Municipal Affairs making sure that the parents of Frankland school could not bring a legal challenge to slow down the introduction of this bill. It continued with the Minister of Education locking out the parents of Annette Street Public School when he came to their school to talk about the education of their children.

Now we have the government members being provided with profiles of those who are criticizing the bill, complete with questions that will steer the critics away from their real and more controversial concerns. These are private citizens. There is now information being developed and being kept secret on private citizens. Is this government so afraid of criticism that it has to keep a checklist on who is going to say what, when? Is this government so fearful of dissent that it is determined to make even these minimal public hearings a complete and total sham?

SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism is coming to my community, Sault Ste Marie, tomorrow to meet with the board of directors of the lottery corporation. Even more important, he's going to be meeting with my constituents. He'll be meeting with the chamber of commerce and with the municipal council, and they have only one thing on their mind: the state of the local economy.

This government is about to make decisions that are going to affect us directly. I hope he's going there to listen to what they have to say, because what they're going to tell him is, number one, don't privatize the lottery corporation, because it is one of the major and fundamental pieces of the industrial sector of our community and those jobs are very important not only to those who have them but to the whole community.

They're also going to tell him that what we want in Sault Ste Marie is a full-fledged casino -- not a mini-casino, not a charitable gaming club, but a full-fledged casino that will actually attract dollars from outside the community into our community and create some work that will be substantial and make a contribution to the economy of our area; not a mini-casino that will suck money out of the pockets of the local people and create significantly less by way of job opportunity and not make the contribution to our area that a full-fledged casino, on which we've had a referendum, would make.

Minister, listen tomorrow when they tell you, "Don't privatize the lottery corporation and don't give us a mini-casino." If you're going to put a casino in our community, make it a real one.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Heart disease and stroke continue to be the number one killer of Canadian men and women, claiming nearly 79,000 and accounting for 38% of Canadian deaths, versus the second-leading cause of death, cancer, which accounts for 28% of Canadian death.

Heart disease and stroke cost the Canadian economy $17 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. This government has taken action to fight the odds against this disease through the reinvestment of $16 million last year to increase the number of surgeries by 19%. This means that 9,100 people in Ontario will be able to have heart surgery each year. That's 1,400 more people who will benefit from the program.

Also as part of the government's reinvestment of health care savings, eight cardiac care hospitals received about $2 million in one-time funding to help pay for an innovative device for heart patients: coronary stents. The extra funding means Ontario's eight cardiac surgery centres will be able to provide improved access to coronary stents for more than 750 additional patients.

Heart and stroke research has shown that adopting a healthy lifestyle can significantly lower one's risk of developing heart disease or stroke. It's never too late to start to reduce your risk.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRUCKING AND BUS SAFETY

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I'm here today to introduce legislation that addresses a specific problem that is targeted at bus and truck owners and operators. First, I would like to review what the Harris government has done to date to make trucks and buses safer.

Before the Christmas break the House passed Bill 92, which contained several truck safety measures, including expanding the powers of the registrar of motor vehicles, legislation for the carrier safety rating and requiring operators to keep MTO advised of the size of their fleet and the distances travelled.

In addition to this, MTO has dramatically stepped up its enforcement activities. By the end of March, MTO staff will have inspected over 40,000 vehicles, more than twice as many as in the previous years. Between last April and this January, they removed 2,400 potential tragedies from our roads by seizing the plates of 2,400 vehicles. They also laid 11,600 charges.

Other measures implemented by the Harris government include mandatory training for wheel installers; higher fines, to a maximum of $20,000, the highest in Canada; lifting the axle weight moratorium; air brake training for truck drivers -- and these are only a few of our changes.

As I have said many times, we have made great strides. However, we still have a long way to go and will not stop until our roads are the safest in North America, which brings me to the legislation I am presenting today.

I had hoped to introduce this legislation as part of our spring bill, but the dramatic increase in truck wheel separations and the seriousness of this offence has prompted me to move forward on this matter alone. Since January 1995, about 113 truck wheel separation incidents have been reported. An inquest into the fatalities caused by wheel separations had recommended tougher sanctions against trucking companies. The inquest also recommended that fines for existing offences be increased and that wheel installers be required to take specialized training.

This government implemented both these recommendations last fall. Unfortunately, some owners of commercial vehicles and operators of truck and bus companies are still not getting the message.

Given the severity of this escalating problem, a wheel separation on a commercial vehicle will become an absolute liability offence. That means if a wheel comes off a truck or a bus while travelling along a highway, the owner of the commercial vehicle and/or the operator of truck and bus companies will be held accountable. No excuses will be allowed. The fine for this offence will range from a minimum of $2,000 to a maximum of $50,000.

This is a serious problem with serious consequences. The $50,000 fine will be the highest under the Highway Traffic Act. Companies which fail to pay the fine will have their operating privileges suspended until the fine is paid. The conviction will go on the carrier's record, and that could mean being called on the carpet before the registrar of motor vehicles. The onus would be on the carrier to prove that they have the proper procedures in place that would prevent any more wheel separations from happening. If the registrar is not satisfied with their program, he has the authority to suspend or cancel the carrier's operating privileges in Ontario.

Together, these fines and early deterrents are strong incentives for the trucking industry to spend both money and time to improve their vehicle maintenance programs. Commercial vehicle owners and the operators of truck and bus companies are the people who should be held accountable and responsible for proper vehicle inspections and for the upkeep of their fleet.

Members of this House have continually reminded me of their concern about truck safety and in particular about wheel separations. This government has acted quickly and decisively on road safety; I ask that this House now do the same. I believe that once all members have had the opportunity to read this bill, they will consent to its immediate passage into law.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): We welcome this long-overdue bill and say to the minister that we will support it and hope we can pass it this week. The only thing we regret is that it has taken you 18 months to get to this point. After repeatedly raising this issue in the House, we find that finally you're prepared to respond.

We also want to say to the minister that it's not enough to simply change the regulations; you need to have the power to enforce your regulations, you need to have the power to enforce your law. Our concern rests with your commitment to enforce the law.

We heard last week, for instance, in televised debate from the OPP, that there's no mechanism for enforcing mandatory training on wheel installers. Your so-called maximum fines that have been implemented already: not one has been levied. The lifting of the axle-weight moratorium does not argue or deal with the issue of truck weights in general. The air brake training for truck drivers: Again the OPP have told us that this is not enforceable.

I had the opportunity to be at an inspection station last Friday when you were making your announcement about this. A simple thing like a torque wrench, which your ministry has refused to provide to those inspection stations, would make the enforcement of your own regulations and laws much easier and much more effective.

But I guess we shouldn't be surprised about the government's lack of willingness to enforce its own laws. It's too bad they didn't bring to their desire to enforce laws the same zeal they bring to closing hospitals and to laying off nurses. It's too bad they didn't put the priority on truck safety that they put on cutting schools and reducing our education. It's too bad this government hasn't made those kinds of commitments. It's too bad that 113 of these wheel incidents have happened since January 1995 and it has taken the government this long to implement.

Finally, I'd like to say it's too bad this government wouldn't have made this announcement in the House prior to doing its little window dressing, as it was called by the family of one of the victims, prior to this massive barrage of public relations.

Yes, this is a government that's about public relations. It's not a government that's concerned about our kids and their education. It's not a government that's concerned about health care and good hospitals. It's a government that fundamentally doesn't understand the real issues that confront the people of this province or their concerns with the government's agenda.

We in the opposition will work with the government to pass this bill, but that doesn't mean it's the end of the debate. The debate turns to enforcement. The debate turns to this minister taking responsibility for what is his responsibility, making it work on our roads here in Ontario. We will continue to press enforcement in the same way we will press good health care in this province. A government that has no comprehension of good health care has to be brought to task. It has to be made known where we stand. We will bring to the question of enforcement the same passion we'll bring to our arguments against the cuts this government has made in education.

We want to make highway safety a priority. We want to make schools a priority. We want to make health care a priority. We think it's time the government abandon its agenda and get on with what matters to people in this province: their hospitals, their schools, their roads.

Let's work together, Minister. Yes, we'll support you on this bill. Now you take some of our ideas in health care and education and maybe, working together, we can make this province a better place for everybody, not just for your friends who will benefit from that very generous tax cut.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Liberal transportation critic Dwight Duncan has already suggested that, after forcing you to finally deal with this issue, we deal with it expeditiously. I can assure you as House leader of the Ontario Liberal Party that we will work to expedite this legislation. I call upon you to put aside your other agenda and bring this legislation forward this week. There's a consensus on this.

At no time has your House leader or anybody else mentioned that this bill would be forthcoming. You've been busy pushing other bills. If you're serious about this one, you will set aside your downloading legislation, legislation that nobody wants, and you will proceed with this this week.

You're going to find out there's a consensus in this House. We should be moving forward. I can tell you that as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we'll proceed with this legislation right away. Just push the other stuff aside because at long last we've finally got you to act on a very important crisis in this province.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today as the transportation critic for the NDP caucus to say to the Minister of Transportation that his initiative is a step in the right direction.

To criticize the whole idea of trying to deal with the whole issue of truck safety and road safety I don't think would be a wise thing at this moment. This is a very serious issue. We've had a lot of people who have been killed on the highways across the province because of these incidents, and anything the government does towards trying to avert such tragedies from happening in the future needs to be applauded.

But I would say one thing on that particular point: I heard just recently, when you were making your statement, that you wanted to move quickly to pass this legislation through.

There is a House leader within your government and I find it very surprising that the Minister of Transportation, on Friday, was able to go out and get a photo opportunity with the media, to yet again stand before the media to try to get some brownie points, but doesn't take the time to go sit with his House leader to say that this is a serious issue for all Ontarians and that we need to find time within the legislative calendar so we're able to deal with this legislation forthwith to make sure we're doing something about this very serious issue.

I want to say on behalf of our caucus that we're more than prepared to sit down and discuss when this legislation will come through, how many days you want to set aside to make sure it goes through and how we do it in a way that is timely for the citizens of this province. If the minister can take the time to organize a press conference, I would think the minister would have the time to sit with his House leader to figure out when this legislation will go through.

I fear, however, given this government's agenda around the downloading, Bill 104 and the school boards, and megacity, that this legislation will not see the time of day probably until much further on in the legislation session. That's too bad because I think there is general agreement in this House to deal with this legislation, and I'm sure that if the Minister of Transportation were to put the energy into meeting with the House leader that he did into organizing his press conference on Friday, maybe we'd be able to get this particular piece of legislation to go forward.

Specific to that legislation, I just want to say I'm somewhat surprised that the government and the minister did not deal with the automatic roadside suspension. We heard the Minister of Transportation over and over again say that was a key element of what needed to be done in order to send a very serious message to the trucking companies out there. I see that it's not part of the package, and I wonder, is it going to be coming forward in the legislation? I don't think so. I think the minister needs to address that particular issue. I say to you, Minister, simply this: What we need from you is less photo opportunities; what we need from the Minister of Transportation is action.

The minister comes into the House today with yet another announcement about how he's going to try to deal with truck safety, but the reality is that the wheels are still flying off the trucks. We still have a serious problem in this province where motorists are fearful every time they go out on the highways that yet another wheel is going to go flying on to the lane they are driving in and they'll possibly get killed.

I don't think the question of the fines is the entire answer to your problem. In fact, I was at a conference on road safety just last week in Ottawa, a conference held by CRASH, and a number of people within industry and other people who are interested in this issue had a very good discussion about what are some of the things we need to do. The consensus was that the fines are not the only answer, that there are other issues we need to take care of in order to address this problem.

We need to go back and take a look at the issues of hours of work for the drivers themselves to make sure they're not driving rigs far past the point they're able to. We need to talk about driver training to make sure that drivers, when they go out in the morning, have the competence and the knowledge and the training to properly go around and inspect their vehicles and identify if a problem is going to happen: Don't try to fix the problem later; fix it before it happens. We need to take a look at the whole issue of the certification process, that when trucks are inspected, it is properly done.

I say to the minister, if you're prepared to bring legislation to this House that deals with those other issues, I can tell you that my House leader, Mr Wildman, and I would imagine the opposition caucus, would be more than prepared to sit down with you and figure out a way that we're able to get this into the House and have people consult on it in the legislative process of committees so that people can have their say about how to deal with this.

In closing, I say to the government, we support generally what you're doing with the fines. However, I don't think it's the entire answer. I think the government and the Minister of Transportation have to stop thinking about photo ops and have to start dealing with the issue of truck safety. Once they're prepared to do that, I can tell you that the NDP caucus will be here with you.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): If the government would stop trying to ram through 104 and 103, bills that the public doesn't want, and were seriously --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege. For you to be able to adjudicate on my point of privilege, I think it's important for you to know that at the committee hearings this morning on Bill 104, government members were presented with a piece of material by a Ministry of Education staff person, and the material contains, as we understand it, profiles on the private citizens who were making representations to the committee. We were at first informed that it was caucus services staff of the Conservatives who had prepared this.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education subsequently said no, it was Ministry of Education personnel who had prepared the material, as indeed it was Ministry of Education personnel who distributed the material. We asked that it be tabled. The government members refused to table it, defeated a motion to table it.

What I'm asking you to determine as a point of privilege is, first of all, the appropriateness of using Ministry of Education staff to develop information background profiles on private citizens; secondly, if you consider that to be an appropriate use of ministry staff, is it not something which should be shared with all members, not only the members of the committee in the Legislature but those private citizens who are named in the list and who, understandably, want to know what is being kept on file about them?

Mr Wildman: On the same point, Mr Speaker, before you rule on this, I would like to point out that in answer to questioning in the legislative committee, the parliamentary assistant indicated that this material was profiles on presenters before the committee that had been prepared, apparently, by the Ministry of Education and Training staff. This led to a tremendous amount of consternation among the presenters, who wanted to know what information had been gathered, what this document said about them, and they wanted the right to peruse that and know what it was about.

In the committee, I moved a motion that the document be tabled, and the majority on the committee voted it down. Is it appropriate that taxpayers' funds would, apparently, be used to develop dossiers on individual members of the public that would only be available to the government members and not to the opposition members on the committee and, frankly, not available to the public? This information was prepared with public funds. It should be available to anyone who wants to see it.

The Speaker: It's a tried precedent in the past with respect to committee hearings and disagreements or points of order or rules that get caught up at committees that the committee Chair is the person who would adjudicate those decisions. It's also a rule of this House for many years that decisions by the Chairs of committees are not appealable to the Speaker simply because --

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): They are, by the committee.

The Speaker: Pardon me. Yes, they are, but we've allowed the Chairs of the committees to make the decisions, and those decisions are established and stand.

As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't at the committee hearing and therefore it would be impossible for me to offer an opinion on whether it was in order or not in order. That's why we have the Chairs of committees. I can only suggest to the member opposite that if you would like a ruling on this point of order, if you haven't done so, make your appeal to the Chair of the committee. If you have done so, then the Chair has rendered a decision at that level, and in accepting the precedents and the practices that we have followed in this place, it's not acceptable for the Speaker then to start overruling decisions taken at committees by a Chair.

Mrs McLeod: But, Mr Speaker, I do believe this may be somewhat unprecedented, firstly. Secondly, there has been no ruling by the Chair of the committee, and the Chair can speak for herself, but I believe that would be seen to be outside the purview of the Chair of the committee and directly related to the relationship between members, the public and ministry staff.

The Speaker: I've got to say quite frankly I don't agree. It seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable approach to take to the Chair of the committee, and the committee can in fact rule; the Chair of that committee can rule.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You said it wasn't a point of order.

The Speaker: And you can stand on a point of order in the committee itself and make your appeal to the Chair, and then the Chair will render a decision, and that decision is much like my decisions in here: It's not appealable, and it can't be appealable to the Speaker; otherwise, as I said in the past, I would be here hearing points of order on decisions taken by Chairs at all our committees. So with that direction I can offer you, that's the direction I would take, and the Chair would in fact do that.

Mr Wildman: Why doesn't the minister just offer to table it here?

The Speaker: As far as the ministry, what they do, it's completely up to them. I don't know who the Chair of the committee is, but whoever it is will make a decision and I will not hear appeals to that decision in this place.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I also have a ruling to read.

On Tuesday, February 18, 1997, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, Mrs Pupatello, raised a point of privilege with respect to certain TV commercials paid for by the government of Ontario. The member alleged that a constituent had called the advertised number to receive information on the government's plans for health care and received instead a response package which appears to be from the Progressive Conservative Party. The member forwarded the documents to me along with some additional information. I note with interest that included in these documents is a membership form for the Progressive Conservative Party.

Let me begin by saying again that the Speaker has neither the resources nor the authority to conduct an investigation into these matters, and as I said on January 22 in this House, "I do not have the jurisdiction to examine the propriety of such campaigns unless they raise a matter of privilege or contempt." In essence, to paraphrase, I can't begin to investigate if this person in fact did phone that number, this was in fact sent to them in the response, and an investigation would in fact be necessary.

With respect to the television ads themselves, I previously ruled that the wording in them is general in nature and cannot be considered to be contemptuous.

As to the matter of the response package coming from the PC Party, while quite disturbing, it does not fall within the sphere of privilege. Neither can it be considered contempt, since it does not somehow cause the respect due to this House to be diminished.

Having said that, my personal views on this subject are clearly on the record, and while I cannot find that the member has a prima facie case of privilege, I understand fully your concerns.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Point of privilege.

The Speaker: I've ruled on that, so it's got to be a different point of privilege, because if it's the same one, then you'd be deemed to be challenging the Chair.

Point of privilege, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker, for that ruling. My question to the Speaker would be, considering that based on your analysis you find it quite disturbing, could you recommend where then we would take it?

The Speaker: With due respect, it's not my job to direct opposition or government members where to take concerns and issues. I'm looking for "quite disturbing" in here and I can't find it.

Mrs Pupatello: I'm paraphrasing.

The Speaker: Paraphrasing me? I sometimes find that gets me into trouble, when people start paraphrasing.

Let me just say to you, I understand your concerns. I can't direct you as to where you should go or shouldn't go. But I know full well that you have very able leadership in your caucus and a very able House leader. If you consulted with them, I'm sure, without any discussion, they would tell you where to go.

Laughter.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you for the compliment, Mr Speaker. We are confronted with this situation which the member draws to your attention. I know you've partially dealt with it previously. We have a situation where we have debates going on in this House, debates going on in our society. One group that is debating, the government, has taken it upon itself to spend taxpayers' dollars through three different ministries to have the Premier on television giving a clearly partisan message. The opposition doesn't have that same privilege.

We don't have the money that the ministries have to put out this message. Somebody somewhere has to take this on. We haven't seen the editorials on it yet, but somewhere they're going to come along.

The Speaker: To the member for St Catharines, you're probably right in the sense that it's probably a good point to make during question period. As a point of privilege I have ruled on it; as contempt I have ruled on it. I think you've come to me and have exhausted the avenues available through my office. All that's left is, again, your option.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question is to the Premier.

This morning your handpicked hospital closing commission decided to hack $90 million out of health care in Ottawa by closing four hospitals -- this despite your promise, a Mike Harris promise, not to close hospitals and despite local plans to find the money to pay for your tax cut without closing any hospitals; this also despite a Mike Harris commitment on May 3, 1995, that "local health care communities will share in any savings identified locally for reinvestment in community priorities." You're taking $126 million out of health care in Ottawa and reinvesting only $36 million.

That means you are stealing $90 million out of the pockets of people in Ottawa and out of health care in Ottawa. That's stealing, not sharing.

You've broken your promise not to close hospitals, Premier. Will you keep your promise and guarantee that every single penny from those hospital closures stays in Ottawa?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'd like to welcome back the Minister of Health, who I know can respond to it.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You understand that you've now got 30 seconds left to answer the question.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I imagine I won't be getting much applause in the near future so I might as well enjoy that 30 seconds' worth.

The honourable member knows full well that it was his government that began the process of asking hospitals to find efficiencies and began the process of laying the foundation to amalgamate hospitals to ensure that we drive every dollar towards front-line patient services. That is what's occurring in Ottawa-Carleton today as a result of the commission's interim findings and conclusions. As you know -- and the honourable member is welcome to be part of the process -- there's a 30-day process now where the public can comment on the findings of the commission, and certainly the government will be commenting on the restructuring report at the appropriate time.

Mr Cordiano: It is clear that the resurrection of the health minister means there are no different answers to the problems we're facing in health care. Whether it's Jim Wilson or Marilyn Mushinski, your plan is the same: Close hospitals, lay off nurses, bring in new user fees, take money from community health care to pay for your tax cut.

It's clear that your failure to reinvest that $90 million in Ottawa means that people will suffer. There will be fewer nurses, longer waiting lists and even more horror stories of people tied to chairs and people unattended and going unnoticed, dying in the hallways of our hospitals right across this province.

Minister, you and your government and your Premier are responsible for this. You can't get away from the responsibility of this. Do you not realize that every dollar you cut from hospitals and fail to reinvest means we're going to receive second-rate, substandard health care in this province? That's on your head, Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member answers his own question when he points out some of the problems we have today in an unrestructured hospital system in this province. Almost 10,000 beds were closed when the Liberals were in power and when the NDP was in power, but you left all the administration there, all the building maintenance, all the heat and hydro -- money today that must be spent on patient services.

At the end of the day we want to make sure that we have modern hospitals. Yes, there will be fewer buildings, but the buildings that remain will have more nurses, more services, will be modern hospitals with the latest technology and drug therapies. That's the goal of this government; that's the goal of the very good people on the commission and the district health councils. We want to drive every dollar to patient services and away from administration, duplication and waste in the system.

Mr Cordiano: Let's be clear about what you're doing, Minister. What this amounts to is nothing short of dismantling our health care system. Why? Because in Ottawa you're cutting $90 million that could pay for the quality of care patients deserve, for more nurses, care for our seniors, community care, and the list goes on. You're not doing that. You're taking money out and you're not putting it back in. That's the bottom line here.

The only guarantee the people of Ottawa have that you're going to do anything after you've closed their hospitals is to hope and pray you're going to do something to reinvest those dollars.

Minister, can you give the people of Ottawa an unequivocal guarantee that every cent of that $90 million you've stolen away from the people of Ottawa for health care will go back into the community to be reinvested in community-based care? That's the guarantee the people of Ottawa are looking for. That's what we're looking for today as an opposition party, as Liberals. We want you to guarantee that you're going to reinvest those dollars in community-based care, for more nurses, for more care for our seniors --

The Speaker: Thank you, member. Minister?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is in error. The government's record is very clear with respect to reinvestments in health care.

Two facts: One is that the health care budget is up substantially this year from the time we came to office, and it's certainly several hundred million dollars more than what the Liberal Party was planning on spending on health care should they have formed the government in the last election.

Second, we haven't seen a great deal of the savings yet that are to be derived from restructuring, but without seeing those savings the government has already invested some $600 million in Ottawa-Carleton and throughout the health care system in our province. Ottawa-Carleton, for example, was one of the first areas of the province to benefit from the reinvestment in paramedic services and the special treatments now available from our ambulance services; long-term care; nursing homes; tremendous investments we've made in Ottawa-Carleton, and the commission is recommending that we make more reinvestments.

The government's record on reinvestment is second to none in this country. We've spent far more new dollars on health care than anything we've seen in savings to date and we intend to keep that record because we're proud of that record.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is also to the new or slightly used Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Mr Kennedy: I'm sorry the truth bothers the members opposite.

I'd like to ask you, Minister, about your hired guns, the restructuring commission, who walked into Ottawa today and closed four hospitals; one in Brockville; closing the hospitals before in Thunder Bay and Sudbury; draft orders for closings in Pembroke and Lambton. They're doing this for one reason: because you took away $1.3 billion. That's a dramatic change in how health care has ever been done and it's your change.

Tell us today why you believe that this restructuring and these cuts will not hurt patients. What evidence, what studies do you have that this isn't going to be harmful to sick Ontarians today? Tell us, Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: We're fortunate in Ontario that we are the last to restructure our health care system. We have very concrete examples from governments throughout this country, governments of different political stripes covering the spectrum of politics in this country, where each has taken the tough decisions to make their health care system better. They've modernized their hospitals. They have the newest drug therapies available. They've made tremendous reinvestments in long-term care and community-based services.

We're on that road today, and it's a road that I hope the honourable members will join us in because you're all on record as agreeing with the need to restructure the hospitals. Your government, Mr Kennedy, and the NDP spent $26.6 million on some 60 studies. The fact of the matter is that the time for study is over. The commission is acting, and the government will follow through with the reinvestments so we have a world-class health care system in this province.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, we know what road you're on. The road you're on leads to lousy health care. That's the road you're taking us down.

I have in front of me a confidential document prepared by your ministry showing clearly that your cut of $1.3 billion was determined first and then the studies were being -- the studies, contrary to what you've said, are still happening. You've cut too much far too fast, and it's hurt patients and you know it.

This document comes from the fiscal working-planning group of the JPPC -- their group of hospitals -- and your ministry looking at your cuts. It went to your deputy minister on January 10, and it says: "We have concluded that even with the most aggressive utilization, management and organizational consolidation, the hospital industry will not be able to achieve the $1.3 billion in transfer payment reductions within the three-year time frame." They say it will hurt health care, and you have known this, your ministry has known this.

Will you not admit today to the people of Ontario, the people of Ottawa, that you've been reckless with health care, you don't have a plan, and your own experts are telling you that you cannot make these cuts without hurting the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: We're listening very carefully to the Ontario Hospital Association, its president David MacKinnon, and hospital administration and front-line workers throughout the province. In fact, I spent Friday and all day today meeting with administrators.

The fact of the matter is we'll look very carefully at year three of the savings. But no one -- no one, I say to all honourable members -- is indicating that this government should stop in its efforts to restructure the system or that we should stop our efforts, along with the commission and with the local district health councils, local people, who want to see their health care systems bettered.

The fact that examples are raised in this House from time to time -- and examples have been raised over the last decade -- about patients who don't receive the care they should receive in a world-class health care system speaks volumes to the fact that we need to restructure the system. There is no choice. You cannot turn back the clock.

We will listen very carefully as we proceed to everyone in the system to ensure that we do it right and that we end up driving every dollar to patient care, because the patients come first in our system, and they'll always come first in our system.

Mr Kennedy: With the greatest respect, this minister is not listening at all. This minister had information -- his ministry had it; his interim, predecessor minister had it -- models have been done by his ministry working with the hospitals, and what they show is that you knew last year that $130 million of cuts is coming right out of the hides of patients, that it's hurting people in this province, and that by the end of next year it will be $290 million that can't be achieved either through operational efficiencies or clinical efficiencies. You knew this. And by next year it will be $400 million.

Your own advisers are telling you this. You knew even as the cuts went forward this year and you know even as you stand there today that these are hurting patients, $300 million worth of hurt. Your own people have documented it.

Will you stand in your place today and tell us that you'll stop until you figure out what you're doing?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'll say to the honourable member that we are listening very, very carefully and very sincerely to all our partners in the health care system and in the hospital system. But if you're a cardiac patient today or a dialysis patient today or if you're being transported by an ambulance throughout this province today, you have better services than one year ago. You have better services.

In fact, in Ottawa-Carleton and in other parts of the province where we've announced the money to make the investment in dialysis, where we've opened up clinics across the province, today people in many parts who need our health care system are receiving better care because of the reinvestments this government has made.

We will not be deterred from making further investments in patients and driving dollars away from administration. All the money we have cannot be wasted any more on empty beds and empty rooms and half-empty hospitals. The money has to be driven to the front lines so we'll have more nurses, modern hospitals, new technologies and an absolutely world-class health care system. That's our goal and we'll be looking to you to help us reach that goal.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you can hardly be surprised that the people of Ontario are confused and fearful about the actual objectives of your hospital restructuring scheme. You've announced reductions of $1.3 billion in hospital funding across the province; that's 18% of total hospital budgets. Yet the chair of the restructuring committee, Duncan Sinclair, said on November 6 that there was far more than $1.3 billion that could come out of hospital restructuring.

We understand that the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council was told prior to the release of the report that the objective of the commission was in fact a 30% reduction in hospital budgets, this despite the fact that the commission chair has said on other occasions that he has not been given any savings targets and that the commission will concentrate on making the hospital system work better rather than meeting artificial dollar targets.

Minister, you have to realize that the people of Ontario are not stupid. They hear these conflicting things. They want to know from you, why are you jeopardizing their health in order to finance your phoney tax scheme?

Hon Mr Wilson: The chair of the restructuring commission, Dr Duncan Sinclair, has made it very clear that he's not driven by any fiscal agenda. The test the commission has made for itself is that quality must be maintained or improved, that access must be maintained or improved, that the system has to be affordable so we can sustain it for many more years, for those generations of Ontarians who will become senior citizens in the next few years and decades, and that we have a world-class system, an excellent system there to look after those ever-increasing needs of the population.

I'm a little confused by the honourable member's question. The commission is not driven by any sort of fiscal plan; it is driven by a genuine concern for the system and a genuine concern that we improve the quality and the access to our health care system.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, I'm not questioning your intention; I'm just questioning the reality of what's happening. Let's look at the report the commission released in Ottawa-Carleton today. It's going to take another $126 million out of health care in that region. You've already taken $71 million out of the hospitals and $3 million out of home care, which is supposed to be the alternative. That's over $200 million in health care dollars taken from that region, with absolutely no commitment on your part about reinvestment.

The few little programs you talk about are nothing compared to what's being removed from this region, and you have not made any commitment to the necessary community-based alternatives. You yourself told the committee on October 1, "In order to do restructuring, you've got to do the investments up front." That's what the commission is saying; that's what the government is trying to respond to.

Minister, you've now got the savings, over $200 million of savings. Will you make a commitment today to live up to those words that you gave the legislative committee last year and make that reinvestment announcement today?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm very happy to once again reiterate the government's commitment to reinvesting in health care. The honourable member points out that we found savings of $200 million. The facts are clear that we've invested over $600 million new dollars into health care, in the time we've been in office, into new services. The record is very clear.

Could I just point out for a moment that in some areas like Thunder Bay and other parts of the province where the commission has already made findings, Windsor for example, we do not have a waiting list today for community-based services. In Thunder Bay we don't have a waiting list for the home care and community-based services. The money will be there when the customers are there. But right now there isn't any place to invest in Thunder Bay. I check all the time -- I know the previous minister did too -- with our area offices to make sure that people are being served.

They're being served very well, and the waiting lists are almost non-existent for most of the home care services in the areas that have already undergone restructuring or are undergoing restructuring.

As we find savings in the system, we will invest every dollar back into patients and in fact our record is --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: Quite frankly, everybody understands that this is rhetoric, that this is a sham. You're cutting the hospital budgets before you do the reinvestment. You're placing the commissioner in place to take the political heat off you and your government. What your rhetoric is all about is an integrated system, but in fact that's not the reality out there, and again and again the communities that are affected are explaining that to you.

The commission doesn't have the power to reinvest the dollars; only you do. The commission has said in Ottawa-Carleton that it will cost $106.4 million in capital reinvestment to accomplish the savings they've put forward. The Ottawa-Carleton district health council recommended a reinvestment package of $57 million to create an integrated health care system. That would include community-based health care, including hospices, community health centres and community home care.

It's up to you today to commit to these very worried people that you are in fact going to reinvest those dollars that have been recommended by the very commission and the district health council that you put in place to make the recommendations. Will you make that commitment today?

Hon Mr Wilson: The government's record to date in the hospital restructuring, along with the commission, is very clear. We've made the reinvestments the commission has asked for, and as we have more customers for long-term care services and that, the government has the money; we made that clear in the budgets of the government. We're spending more money on health care than when you were in office, certainly more money than the Liberal Party was going to spend if it formed the government.

We're spending 6% more on health care per person in Ontario than any other province in Canada. We want to spend that money as effectively and as wisely as possible. We want modern hospitals with the newest technologies. We want fewer buildings, but more nurses and more services in the buildings that remain, so that we can serve more people and help people when they need those services in their lives. That's what we're all about in restructuring. That's what the commission's all about. Yes, we will make those reinvestments.

Once we've done the review of the commission's findings, you'll hear about those reinvestments. We'll look after the employees and we'll look after all those people who need health care services in Ottawa-Carleton.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Boyd: Again to the Minister of Health: Minister, I don't think there are any people in this Legislature or even in the province who disagree with the fine words around restructuring that constantly come out of your mouth and your predecessor's mouth. Restructuring, we all know, has to happen, but the reality is you're taking the money out first. There is no guarantee it's going to be reinvested in the communities from which it's taken. There is no guarantee to the people in those communities that their health care is going to be protected by your government. That's the reality.

There has been 18% cut from hospital budgets and you say you've reinvested. There is absolutely nothing in those communities to show their health care is protected. Surely you're aware there is a growing public concern that completely drowns out your fine words.

Minister, your response has been to try and put it off and say people are complaining because they don't want to restructure. Once and for all, let us be clear. Everyone understands there has to be restructuring, but something has to be put in place before you take the health care dollars away. Will you commit to that?

Hon Mr Wilson: The government's commitment is clear to making the reinvestments. We made the largest single investment in the history of health care late last year with $170 million for new long-term-care services, creating 4,400 new jobs for nurses and other front-line providers in homemaking and home care services in the province. We haven't been able to spend all of the $170 million, because frankly we don't have waiting lists in Windsor, we don't have waiting lists in Thunder Bay, we don't have waiting lists in Simcoe county for those services. As the population grows older and needs those services and as we do more on an outpatient basis, that money is available.

A total of $600 million has been invested in health care since this government came to office. That's far more dollars than anything we've seen in savings to date. We're proud of our record and we're going to keep going.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This minister, new as he is today, must not be up to date in terms of the services required in Windsor. He cannot get away with giving this kind of information, which is simply inaccurate.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mrs Boyd: It may however be a point of rhetoric, and that is exactly our point. The rhetoric sounds good. The reality that the people of Ontario are facing in their communities, in their hospitals, is very different than your rhetoric. That's not the reality that we're facing.

Minister, you said in response to one of my colleague's questions here that you've been listening. Listening without action is not worth anything. When are you going to respond to the recommendations of your own commission to the Ontario Hospital Association, all of the health care professionals who have spoken to you, and actually begin to show us that the words you use about reinvestment in health care are more than words, that in fact the reality is going to be that at the end of the day this restructuring will accomplish a better health care system and not the chaos and the fear and the distrust that is out there now among the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: Let me just remind the member of some of the significant reinvestments we've made to date since coming to office, for a total of $684,948,000: $170 million in new long-term-care services for the province; $43 million for high-growth-area hospitals this year; $25 million last year for high-growth hospitals; $14 million in a special fund for recognizing the needs of northern Ontario hospitals; $59.4 million, almost $60 million, for Thunder Bay restructuring; $18 million for the cancer centre in Windsor; $13 million for emergency on-call fees for doctors in the province; $45 million in some 367 new drugs listed to the seniors and social assistance drug plan -- that's in contrast to the over 250 drugs you took off the seniors drug plan.

We've added hundreds of new drugs, $45 million in new dollars in that program alone, or a total of almost $700 million in new health care spending in the province.

Mrs Boyd: It sounds familiar, Minister, and I must say your vacation has not done you any harm, because you've picked up the tape and you're running with it again. We've heard this again and again and again, and it does not speak to the reality that patients and their families are facing throughout this province. You have not listened to the stories of people who have actually been patients -- victims, I was going to say -- of the health care system as it exists under your ministry. You know these words are wearing very thin and you are going to be held responsible.

To talk about reinvestment, as you did in that list, of things that are already in the budget, already part of the projected budget, certainly in long-term care are part of the projected budget, is simply -- how can I say this so that the Speaker won't get excited -- window dressing.

Interjection: Creative accounting.

Mrs Boyd: Creative accounting. Thank you. It is extremely difficult for people who are experiencing the reality of the health care system to believe you. Minister, please, today, stand in your place and commit to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and all the other centres that have been affected.

Hon Mr Wilson: I reiterate the government's commitment to make the investments that are needed in Ottawa-Carleton as the restructuring proceeds. The fact that we have problems in some of our hospitals today, the fact that individual cases get raised in the Legislature from time to time tells me and tells the members of the government and tells anyone in the province that's listening that there's a need to restructure the system.

There's a need to change the way we do things and to drive more dollars to those front-line services. The patient always comes first. That's the goal of the health care system. We're making that a reality through our reinvestments and we're going to continue to listen very carefully to the people of Ontario to ensure that we reinvest the dollars saved back into priority areas that are identified as we move forward with restructuring in the province.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Premier. Hundreds and hundreds of people who want to make you understand their concerns about the educational bill that your minister is bringing forward now believe that even the very limited public hearings that you have allowed are a complete and total sham. As you will know, only a small number of the more than 1,150 people who wanted to make their concerns known in Toronto have been able to be heard, yet your government seems to be intimidated even by these few.

It is incredible that the Minister of Education's need for control is so great that he has now asked Ministry of Education staff to prepare profiles of those who are presenting at the committee or in public forums. It is even more incredible that the minister and the government members are not prepared to make those profiles and the background information available to the people whose names are on the list.

Premier, I can tell you that private citizens don't like knowing that their government is collecting information on them --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs McLeod: -- and they particularly don't like having that information kept secret to government members. I ask whether or not, Premier, you condone the keeping --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Fort William. Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Education --

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Let me be very clear about one thing, and that is that this government is very proud of Bill 104, very proud of restructuring education, very proud of moving some money out of bureaucracy, out of duplication and reducing the number of politicians involved in our education system. We are very proud of that.

Bill 104 of course results from the actions that have happened over the course --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- over the course of a number of years including the Sweeney commission, which took 20,000 submissions. We will of course engage in a public dialogue about the bill over the course of the next few weeks and we'll bring in all written submissions possible and consider all of those to make sure this is the best bill possible.

On the subject the member opposite brings up today about some sort of list, I'm unaware of the list but I will ask my staff to bring it to me. If there's anything untoward about it, I will make sure that it's released.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the Premier, I have another list here: 44 top staffers in your office, in key ministers' offices, municipal affairs and other key departments, who have tried to intervene in the referendum process in the city of Toronto. You've tried to discredit the referendum process. You said you would ignore it, you would not listen to people. Do you condone the attempt of these 44 staffers to intervene and disrupt the referendum process in the city of Toronto?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm surprised that the member opposite would direct that question to me, but I know my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would be more than happy to respond.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm aware of this situation only from what I've read in the media, but it's my understanding that a member of city council was so concerned about the biased way in which the referendum was being held in the city of Toronto that he wanted to try and ensure there was scrutiny of the ballot box on the day of the election. He approached a number of individuals throughout the community and asked them to take

part in that process to ensure that the integrity of that process was protected. It was the decision of various individuals, from whatever walk of life, to take

part in that process. It's up to them, it's an individual decision, and by the way, none of them were from my ministry, to the best of my knowledge.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question of the Premier. You made a commitment to firefighters across this province and to the communities that they serve that there would be no changes to firefighting legislation without thorough consultation with those very same firefighters. You made a promise to firefighters like these and their sisters and brothers across this province and to their communities that you would consult with them. You did it and Bill 84 is now scheduled for second reading vote. Why did you break your promise to these firefighters, to their families and their communities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Solicitor General can respond.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The act that is before the House and will be voted on in terms of second reading later today has been the product of extensive consultations over many years. This is the first change in one half century. In 1989, under the Liberal government, the fire services review was begun. This involved all of the unions, the chiefs, the various associations and all the stakeholders in the fire community.

We've had extensive discussion in this House and we're going to have public hearings across this province. My door continues to be open in terms of sitting down with the firefighters' associations. I've made that offer and I hope to follow up on that with a meeting with the various associations in the very near future. We're willing to continue to consult. I've indicated on a number of occasions that we're prepared to listen with respect to their concerns and the possibility of amendments during the hearings process.

Mr Kormos: These firefighters up here in the gallery are shaking their heads in distress and disgust at this response because they know, and their sisters and brothers, their colleagues in every community large and small across this province know, that there was no consultation with these or their sister and brother firefighters. They know that the Premier broke his promise. They know that your door has been locked, bolted and barred to them and other professional firefighters.

Minister, you should know that it takes a full-time firefighter four years to become a first-class firefighter where he or she is then ready for any kind of emergency. You're not going to get that kind of experience on a part-time basis. Why, with your Bill 84, are you going to permit full-time professional firefighters to be replaced with part-timers who have far less training and experience and who are going to as a result of that put our communities and their members' and their families' lives and safety at risk? Why are you doing that?

Hon Mr Runciman: I would say, to be polite, that is alarmist at the very least. Indeed this government, through Bill 84, will be enhancing public safety. I believe strongly we'll be enhancing public safety through the initiatives under Bill 84.

We talk about training. About 18,000 of the 26,000 firefighters in this province are volunteers. I think the comment that the member opposite makes reflects badly on the volunteers who give of their time freely to protect communities right across this province. That is really what you're saying. I have nothing but the utmost respect for professional firefighters in this province, nothing but the utmost respect, but also for volunteer firefighters who donate their time.

With respect to part-time, again I believe the member is being alarmist. I think part-timers are going to assist in many of the smaller municipalities which cannot afford a full-time firefighter for prevention matters. They can go out and do those kinds of duties where they simply do not have the ability to cover that with a full-time professional firefighter.

Again, I believe what we're doing through Bill 84 --

The Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. New question.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I attended a public forum on education at Winston Churchill Collegiate in Scarborough last week. A flyer advertising the meeting had been distributed to all students on school time. It's entitled "Urgent Notice to Students." It makes several allegations about Bill 104 that really are anti-government propaganda. Parents have contacted my office to say they send their children to school to learn math, literacy and critical thinking, not union politics.

At another town hall meeting I had last week, a parent came to me to question why a music teacher at Wexford Collegiate in Scarborough would ask all the students to write a letter to you, Minister, condemning cuts that would cancel or hurt the music program. The 16-year-old did not want to write this letter, nor did her mother want to complain to school authorities for fear of reprisal.

Minister, how is it that paid public employees can use the classroom as a soapbox for union politics and anti-government propaganda?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Let's be very clear: I don't think it's right to politicize the classroom. I know most people in this chamber would agree that it's not right to do that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What about the Premier on television?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to warn the member for St Catharines that you must come to order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I guess I stand corrected. Perhaps with some individuals in this chamber it's okay to politicize the classroom. It certainly is not with me and it's certainly not all right with my colleagues.

I've raised this issue with Mr Earl Manners, who is the president of the OSSTF. I asked him to reconsider his actions, and so far I'm disappointed to report that Mr Manners has not changed his position.

I am pleased to note, though, that the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association issued a statement last week condemning this kind of action in the classroom. I am convinced that at the end of the day the majority of the hardworking professional teachers in this province simply won't allow the classroom to be politicized.

Minister, the document seems to be fearmongering over possible decisions that future amalgamated school boards might make. How do you respond to those accusations?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the honourable member for bringing this subject up in the House today. I want to make it very clear to my colleagues across the floor that Bill 104 has absolutely nothing to do with the funding of education; it has a lot to do with the ending of waste and duplication and the reduction of the number of politicians in our school system.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): He is misleading the House.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I ask that you withdraw that comment, please.

Mr Bisson: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Minister of Education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Bill 104 has an awful lot to do with ending that waste and duplication, with taking out a layer of politicians from the education system and preparing us to make the changes we need to improve student achievement in the future.

On the funding subject I'm very happy to talk to people, because this government is committed to a funding model that's been suggested to previous governments that they haven't had the courage to act on.

The province has taken the responsibility for funding education to make sure there are no second-class students in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I caution the members for Hamilton Centre and Sudbury to come to order, please.

Hon Mr Snobelen: At the end of the day, when we have finished with our consultations on the funding system, I can assure the members of this House and the people of Ontario that we will meet the needs of every single individual student right across Ontario.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. I have on numerous occasions risen in this House to indicate the community's concern with the growing backlog in the criminal court system. In response the Attorney General, on November 5, announced a prosecution blitz. It seems now, four months later, that we are no better off. In fact the situation is quite alarming. That's partly because the Attorney General allowed no new moneys to go into the system as he announced his blitz.

We now have a situation where offenders are being released into our streets and into our neighbourhoods, and it is really of concern.

I'd just like to cite a couple of examples. I don't intend to be alarmist at all, but we are very concerned. Justice Howden threw out a burglary case in Newmarket; Justice McIsaac threw out charges of theft, again in Newmarket; Justice Stong dismissed a Whitby sexual assault case; Justice Hill threw out theft charges in Brampton; Justice Salhany recently threw out sexual interference due to court delays.

My question to the Attorney General is this: What is he prepared to do about it? The public is concerned. When is he going to instil some real money --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member. Attorney General?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): One of the reasons we've had a long-standing difficulty with backlogs in our criminal courts is because between 1985 and 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly warned the then Liberal government to deal with this problem. They didn't, and that government was directly responsible for 70,000 cases being dismissed.

That problem has continued in spite of the Martin report. I have announced blitz courts in six jurisdictions. We've set up nine additional courts in heavily backlogged areas. We've appointed 25 more crown attorneys to deal with backlog issues. We are seeing, in four of the six courts where we've set up backlog reviews, reductions in numbers already. I might tell you that when we took over as the government, this problem existed then; it has marginally increased since that time, and we are now reversing that trend for the first time in 10 years in the province.

Ms Castrilli: That response is totally unworthy of an Attorney General who I believe cares about the justice system of this province. Let's look at the facts. You have reduced the number of crown attorneys; you have slashed funding of your own ministry to the tune of $116 million. That's the reality. That's what's causing the backlog. In the East Mall court alone, there are 14,000 cases pending; 50% of the cases in Metro Toronto are on the critical list, having been in the system for over eight months.

Will you call, at the very least, for an emergency round table discussion to solve this problem and inject some new funding into the system to protect the public?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have put $2 million into the backlog blitz. I might tell the member that the total reduction of the criminal system was 0.4% of the ministry's overall budget. I can also tell you that in terms of court administration, the reduction on a per-courthouse basis around the province, any reductions have been less than 1% per courthouse.

What we are doing is attacking a backlog problem by a concerted court blitz for the first time in 10 years. I can tell you that when we took office there were 145,000 cases in the backlog. There are now 165,000. I might tell you that most of those cases, the vast majority of those cases, are there because defence counsel has agreed to waive the eight-month limitation.

There is not a crisis, but there is indeed a real effort being made on a day-to-day basis to make sure the backlog is reduced. We're putting money into it; we're seeing good numbers already and it's working.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training regarding the anti-democratic approach of his government with regard to his so-called education reform.

Does the minister know the consternation with which his so-called reforms are greeted by members of the public: parents, trustees, teachers and everyone involved in the education community? Could the minister explain why, with this amalgamation of boards, his government is taking such a different approach from the previous government, the Conservative government in 1968, that also amalgamated boards?

Why is it that this government apparently has dossiers on people that it will not publicize? Why is it that this government is appointing a commission whose decisions can't be appealed even to a court, a commission that is holding up construction in Peel, in his own area? Why is there this approach, which is so undemocratic, this time around?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the member for Algoma, I guess this government is acting on the same kind of advice, on the same kind of popular opinion, on the same thoughts of people across the province that your government acted on when it appointed the Sweeney commission to take the number of boards in Ontario to half, which is exactly what this government is doing.

What perhaps surprises the member opposite is that we are actually taking action to improve the education system in the province. It is not anti-democratic. In fact, there are elected trustees now; there will be elected trustees in 1998. We have the Education Improvement Commission, of which we've announced the co-chairs, and I'm sure you'd approve of those people; they're very honourable people. We have asked them to help us in that transition period from an old, wasteful system to a new system that will help us lift student achievement right across the province. That's where we're going as a government, that's where we're going as a province, and I'm proud of the bill.

Mr Wildman: With respect, the Sweeney commission did not recommend this kind of approach in process, and neither did former Premier Davis need a commission with these kinds of extraordinary powers when he amalgamated boards and set up the county boards in 1968.

Since the minister says he is in favour of democracy, can he guarantee that the commission, in making its decisions around merging collective agreements, for instance -- that employee rights will be recognized and respected, and that successor rights for employees, teacher and non-teacher, will be guaranteed in the process?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Of course this government will meet its obligations, but it will do that so as to end a system that your government failed to end, a system where there are 129 mini-ministries of education, a system that would not allow us to get to the future of education that we want for our students, a system which produced mediocre student results which are not okay with me, not okay with my colleagues, and which we will improve and improve dramatically and improve immediately. That is what we're moving forward to.

LABOUR ISSUES

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is for the Minister of Labour, and it concerns a meeting she attended recently with federal, provincial and territorial ministers of labour in Hull, Quebec, earlier this month on February 10 and 11. I wonder if the minister could update this House on the substance of those discussions.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I'd be very pleased to comment about the meeting that took place with my provincial counterparts as well as the federal Minister of Labour. I was quite pleased to see that there was certainly a lot of consensus about the direction that labour ministers were heading across Canada. I think there was a recognition that we were seeing a changing workplace, we were seeing a changing employer-employee relationship, and as a result, we discussed changes to the Employment Standards Act. As you know, I will be introducing a review of that act this spring. We discussed the fact that many of them were looking at similar reviews.

We took a look at occupational health and safety, and I guess what probably impressed me the most was the sincere commitment on the part of all of the individuals there to commit to making their workplaces as safe as they possibly could be.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): No shame.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The third issue that certainly was of concern and interest was the federal bankruptcy act, and so we did address the issue of changes to the act.

Mr Christopherson: You cut the wage protection program.

Mr Chudleigh: If the member opposite is finished, the minister mentioned the need to improve federal bankruptcy and insolvency legislation. Could you expand on this issue, especially as it relates to employees of bankrupt companies?

Hon Mrs Witmer: At the present time, workers across Canada do not have secured creditor status under the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Unfortunately, there is no protection for workers anywhere in Canada. They are not --

Mr Christopherson: Tell us how much you care. You gutted the wage protection program.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Hamilton Centre, I'm warning you to come to order.

Mr Christopherson: She's very provocative.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: My colleagues find it interesting that I would be considered provocative. However, I shall continue that there was consensus. I had originally written a letter to the federal minister asking that employees be given preferred status under the act. This was supported by my colleagues across the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that the federal government will not be making any changes to the legislation, and so unfortunately our workers will not be protected and they will not have preferred status.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): They were protected until you gutted the program. You gutted the plan.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, come to order, please. New question.

JOB CREATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and the issue is jobs. The Premier will know that last week the government released its report on jobs, and it says Ontario loses 7,000 jobs in January. It spells out that in the last five months, Ontario has actually lost 37,000 jobs while the rest of Canada has gained 72,000 jobs. For all of us, it's an extremely disappointing job performance over the last five months.

We've been trying for the last few days to get an explanation from the government of what's happened: Why has Ontario lost 37,000 jobs over the last five months while the rest of Canada has gained 72,000 jobs? Certainly for the people of Ontario, that's an extremely important question.

I'm sure, Premier, you've asked the same question. What is the explanation of why Ontario has lost 37,000 jobs over the last five months?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think that most objective economists and reporters realize by now that you use figures very selectively to create a totally inaccurate picture, so let's review the facts.

In 1996, Ontario created 90,000 private sector jobs, 56% of the national total created right here in Ontario. Ontario, in 1996, also created 82% of the new retail and wholesale trade jobs in Canada, 73% of the net new manufacturing jobs in Canada. If you take the statistics -- and everybody knows you can take numbers and put them any way you want and come up with an answer that might try and support your case. In your case, your numbers do not add up. They are inaccurate and they are not accepted by anybody else in the country.

Mr Phillips: I think the unemployed in the province of Ontario understand that Ontario has lost 37,000 jobs in the past five months. They understand that you said unemployment would drop, and they see from your own statistics 27,000 more people out of work in 1996 than the previous year. They understand that when you ran for Premier, you promised there would be 725,000 jobs. Now what we see is -- you promised that by now we'd have 228,000 jobs -- 97,000 jobs created. They understand very well that you are letting them down dramatically.

My question again is this, and let's have an answer from you: Why is it that the facts you present, the 37,000 fewer jobs in the last five months -- no one disputes those numbers. No one. Everyone in the province understands that is the truth. Those are your numbers, 37,000 fewer jobs. We, and more importantly the unemployed of this province, want to know why. Tell us why Ontario lost 37,000 jobs in the last five months. Let's have the answer.

Hon Mr Harris: Since the statistics are totally inaccurate and irrelevant, I'll ignore those and go on and tell you what is really happening. Quite frankly --

Mr Phillips: Prove one that's inaccurate.

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

Mr Phillips: Give me one that is inaccurate, Premier. Prove one.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harris: All the statistics in fact point to Ontario doing a better job than the rest of Canada in job creation, in new confidence, in home starts, in construction, in retail sales, in all of those areas. All the indicators, all the projections, contrary to the honourable member, who used to have credibility but has completely lost it in the past year with the publishing of erroneous numbers, contrary to that, say absolutely the opposite.

Mr Phillips: Prove one. I challenge you. I don't believe a word of it.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I'm warning you to come to order, and this is the final warning. You've got to come to order.

Hon Mr Harris: So what we are finding, while all of us are concerned -- I want to tell you, on this side of the House, we find it unacceptable if even one person who wishes to work is unemployed, so our goal is to create a climate, to create policies, to counter 10 years of disastrous policies, to ensure that everybody who wants a job can get one. I'd love to be able to tell you that's the case today; it is not. Obviously we have a lot more work to do, but we are getting there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, come to order. There are no more warnings.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Premier. Last week your government released an announcement about charity gaming clubs, a number of permanent charity casino sites in the province. Attached to that was a

schedule that had designated regions. Included within that is a reference to my community of Beaches in Toronto.

During two-plus years of debate around the future of the Greenwood Race Track site, let me tell you that it didn't matter what side you were on, whether you were for development on the site or whether you were for all park on the site, people were united in their opposition to having any kind of casino activity, gaming activity in that community. Hundreds of people from right across the Beach were involved.

I'm not going to have an opportunity to get a supplementary in today, Premier. What I really want to ask of you is an assurance about the process. I want you to give me an assurance that if the residents of Beaches-Woodbine are opposed to having one of these charitable gaming clubs in our community, it won't be forced on us. Please assure us of that and tell us what the process will be.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you are aware that we're trying to take some 2,400 three-day permits down to 44 across the province so that we can have better control, so that we can replace the three-day roving Monte Carlo events, which are costly to run, difficult to administer and take a lot of dollars in administration and do not get enough dollars to the charity. Let me assure the member that the city of Toronto will definitely, after any changes we make, not have more casino permits than it has had to date.

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 107,

An Act to enact the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997 and to amend other acts with respect to water and sewage / Projet de loi 107, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 1997 sur le transfert des installations d'eau et d'égout aux municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui a trait à l'eau et aux eaux d'égout.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We have a deferred vote on second reading of Bill 107.

It will be a five-minute bell; call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1512 to 1517.

The Speaker: Order. All those in favour, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Hastings, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Baird, John R.

Hudak, Tim

Sampson, Rob

Barrett, Toby

Jackson, Cameron

Saunderson, William

Bassett, Isabel

Johns, Helen

Shea, Derwyn

Beaubien, Marcel

Johnson, David

Sheehan, Frank

Boushy, Dave

Kells, Morley

Skarica, Toni

Brown, Jim

Klees, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Carroll, Jack

Leach, Al

Snobelen, John

Chudleigh, Ted

Martiniuk, Gerry

Spina, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Maves, Bart

Sterling, Norman W.

Danford, Harry

McLean, Allan K.

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

Munro, Julia

Tascona, Joseph N.

Doyle, Ed

Murdoch, Bill

Turnbull, David

Ecker, Janet

Mushinski, Marilyn

Vankoughnet, Bill

Flaherty, Jim

Newman, Dan

Villeneuve, Noble

Ford, Douglas B.

O'Toole, John

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Froese, Tom

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wilson, Jim

Galt, Doug

Palladini, Al

Witmer, Elizabeth

Guzzo, Garry J.

Parker, John L.

Wood, Bob

Harnick, Charles

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Young, Terence H.

Harris, Michael D.

Ross, Lillian

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Crozier, Bruce

North, Peter

Boyd, Marion

Duncan, Dwight

Phillips, Gerry

Bradley, James J.

Kennedy, Gerard

Pouliot, Gilles

Brown, Michael A.

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Caplan, Elinor

Kwinter, Monte

Ramsay, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Lankin, Frances

Ruprecht, Tony

Christopherson, David

Marchese, Rosario

Sergio, Mario

Churley, Marilyn

Martel, Shelley

Silipo, Tony

Cleary, John C.

Martin, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Colle, Mike

McLeod, Lyn

Wood, Len

Cordiano, Joseph

Morin, Gilles E.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion passed. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Speaker: So ordered.

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition in response to Bill 84.

"Speed, experience and teamwork save lives. Don't get burned by Bill 84."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, expertise and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

Of course I affix my signature to the petition.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I agree completely and I've affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I continue to receive this petition from residents throughout the borough of East York. This one reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the borough of East York is requiring voters in the current mail-in referendum to return their ballots in envelopes bearing their names and addresses; and

"Whereas the ballots are to be forwarded to the borough of East York at the East York Civic Centre and not to an independent elections commission; and

"Whereas the East York council has declared itself in favour of a particular result in the referendum; and

"Whereas the question itself is prejudicial in its wording and clearly slanted towards the result favoured by council; and

"Whereas all of the above factors violate well-established and universally acknowledged principles of a free democratic referendum process;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to:

"

(1) Speak out against the current flawed, undemocratic referendum in East York;

"

(2) Disregard the results of the vote; and

"

(3) Proceed with the government's program to provide for Toronto's future through the creation of one Toronto for all of us."

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I support this petition and I sign my name to it.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I have affixed my support and my signature to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I have the great pleasure to rise on behalf of a number of constituents from High Park-Swansea and Parkdale to present a petition to the Legislature Ontario which reads, in part:

"Whereas the right to life, a right guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is limited to only those who are born, by the practice of abortion, without prescription by law, contrary to the guarantee of the charter;

"Whereas the case law to date supports an unlimited right to life for unborn children" -- and a number of case studies are submitted for information --

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature Ontario to honour the guarantee of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in regard to an unlimited right to life for those unborn and to call on the government of Ontario to cause the practice of and the public funding of abortion to cease in Ontario until such time as a law prescribes the appropriate limit to the charter-guaranteed right to life."

I submit this on behalf of my constituents.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition that's headlined: "Speed, experience and teamwork save lives. Don't get burned by Bill 84." It's addressed, of course, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. We oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of our local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in our communities. Please listen" -- clearly, the Premier hasn't -- "to professional firefighters," like those in the gallery today and thousands of others across this province, "and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I've added my signature to indicate my strong support for those sentiments.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition here against Bill 84, which would be detrimental to the excellent work that our firefighters are doing. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

As usual, I'm affixing my signature to this petition because I'm in full agreement with it.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of the firefighters in Hamilton. I want to say to the members that the people I represent in Hamilton Centre are very supportive of this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I proudly add my name to theirs on behalf of my constituents.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I've affixed my signature to it.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here as well from the constituents of my community of Sault Ste Marie and it's about the very same issue, this whole question of Bill 84 and firefighters, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

This is signed by a whole whack of people from across this province, a lot of people, and I will sign it as well.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I've affixed my signature as well.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition from Toronto, Kingston, Orillia and Hamilton to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I affix my signature in support of this.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition here signed by approximately 100 people, and this petition is entitled "Speed, experience and teamwork save lives: Don't get burned by Bill 84." It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I sign my name to this petition.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I've got a petition here signed by 560 names from the Quinte area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that would undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Speed, experience and teamwork save lives: Don't get burned by Bill 84:

Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

It is signed by hundreds of people throughout Ontario, and I affix my name to the petition as well.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In addition to bringing the calendar to the minister today, the firefighter calendar from Windsor, I am bringing a petition as well:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I affix my signature.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

This is signed by 45 residents of the city of Toronto. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with the petitioners.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On behalf of firefighters everywhere, this is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I concur and I will affix my signature to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has plans to make changes to the Workers' Compensation Act which will have a negative impact on workers, including firefighters; and

"Whereas the changes include reducing the payouts to 85% of earnings, eliminating various types of injuries and having employees apply to their employers for benefits; and

"Whereas the WCB had a surplus of $510 million in 1995; and

"Whereas in 1994 there was an uncollected employer debt of $173 million; and

"Whereas the problems with the WCB are not the fault of injured workers;

"Whereas the recommendation to privatize will result in an increase of 13% in administrative costs;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the government of Ontario stop its plan to privatize the WCB and that extensive province-wide hearings be held before any changes are made to WCB."

I add my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WHEEL SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES ROUES

Mr Palladini moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 125,

An Act to improve road safety by making wheel detachments an offence by amending the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 125, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité routière en faisant du détachement de roue une infraction au Code de la route.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I addressed the contents of the bill in my statement earlier today. However, I wish to appeal to my opposition colleagues to approve this bill without any further debate. The sooner we get it done, the safer Ontarians are going to feel on our highways.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 84,

An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to have a five-minute bell on that order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it agreed that we'll have a five-minute bell? Agreed.

Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 84. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1540 to 1545.

The Acting Speaker: Members take their seats, please. Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 84. All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Harris, Michael D.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Baird, John R.

Hastings, John

Ross, Lillian

Barrett, Toby

Hudak, Tim

Runciman, Robert W.

Bassett, Isabel

Jackson, Cameron

Sampson, Rob

Beaubien, Marcel

Johns, Helen

Saunderson, William

Boushy, Dave

Johnson, Bert

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Johnson, David

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Kells, Morley

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Snobelen, John

Danford, Harry

Leach, Al

Spina, Joseph

DeFaria, Carl

Martiniuk, Gerry

Sterling, Norman W.

Doyle, Ed

Maves, Bart

Stewart, R. Gary

Flaherty, Jim

McLean, Allan K.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Turnbull, David

Froese, Tom

Murdoch, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Galt, Doug

Mushinski, Marilyn

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Gilchrist, Steve

Newman, Dan

Wilson, Jim

Grimmett, Bill

O'Toole, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Harnick, Charles

Parker, John L.

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Duncan, Dwight

North, Peter

Boyd, Marion

Kennedy, Gerard

Phillips, Gerry

Bradley, James J.

Kormos, Peter

Pouliot, Gilles

Brown, Michael A.

Kwinter, Monte

Pupatello, Sandra

Caplan, Elinor

Lankin, Frances

Ramsay, David

Christopherson, David

Marchese, Rosario

Sergio, Mario

Cleary, John C.

Martel, Shelley

Silipo, Tony

Colle, Mike

Martin, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Cordiano, Joseph

McLeod, Lyn

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Morin, Gilles E.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 60; the nays are 29.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David Johnson: Madam Speaker, I refer the bill to the standing committee on administration of justice for public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: To the justice committee, so ordered.

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 105,

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

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, with regard to the 19th order, I believe we have unanimous consent for a five-minute bell.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Further debate?

Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 105. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1551 to 1556.

The Acting Speaker: Will members take their seats, please.

Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 105. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Hastings, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Baird, John R.

Hudak, Tim

Sampson, Rob

Barrett, Toby

Jackson, Cameron

Saunderson, William

Bassett, Isabel

Johns, Helen

Shea, Derwyn

Beaubien, Marcel

Johnson, Bert

Sheehan, Frank

Boushy, Dave

Johnson, David

Skarica, Toni

Brown, Jim

Kells, Morley

Smith, Bruce

Carroll, Jack

Klees, Frank

Snobelen, John

Chudleigh, Ted

Leach, Al

Spina, Joseph

Cunningham, Dianne

Martiniuk, Gerry

Sterling, Norman W.

Danford, Harry

Maves, Bart

Stewart, R. Gary

DeFaria, Carl

McLean, Allan K.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Doyle, Ed

Munro, Julia

Turnbull, David

Flaherty, Jim

Murdoch, Bill

Vankoughnet, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Wilson, Jim

Gilchrist, Steve

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Witmer, Elizabeth

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

Wood, Bob

Guzzo, Garry J.

Parker, John L.

Young, Terence H.

Harnick, Charles

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Harris, Michael D.

Ross, Lillian

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed, please stand one at a time.

Nays

Boyd, Marion

Duncan, Dwight

North, Peter

Bradley, James J.

Kennedy, Gerard

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Kormos, Peter

Pouliot, Gilles

Caplan, Elinor

Kwinter, Monte

Pupatello, Sandra

Castrilli, Annamarie

Lankin, Frances

Ramsay, David

Christopherson, David

Marchese, Rosario

Sergio, Mario

Cleary, John C.

Martel, Shelley

Silipo, Tony

Colle, Mike

Martin, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Cordiano, Joseph

McLeod, Lyn

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

Morin, Gilles E.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 29.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David Johnson: Madam Speaker, if the bill could be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, again for public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: So ordered.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to debate the government House calendar motion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there consent? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: I move that notwithstanding any standing order, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 6, 1997, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 1, 1997, and that the House meet on Friday, April 4, 1997, at 1:30 pm until 6 pm, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until Monday, April 21, 1997.

I know that people are going to be leaving at this time but I will try to speak just for a very few moments.

The Acting Speaker: Could I ask members to either take their seats or if they're going to have meetings, go outside, please.

Hon David Johnson: I won't speak for long on this because I know there are a number of members on all sides of the House who wish to participate. I will simply say that through this calendar motion we will guide the activities of the House over roughly the next two-month period of time. The most significant aspect of that guidance will be that there will be a considerable amount of time allocated for public hearings on quite a number of bills. Of course we are aware that public hearings are already taking place on the new City of Toronto Act even as we speak and that shortly public hearings will be involved with Bill 104, which is the bill dealing with school boards in the province.

I think most people are somewhat familiar with those two pieces of legislation, but there are a number of other pieces of legislation as well.

While I think it's very apparent that there is a difference of opinion in this House -- the opposition parties have a difference of opinion certainly, and they've expressed that difference of opinion very vocally with regard to the legislation that this government has introduced -- I believe that all parties are unanimous in wishing to see active and thorough public hearings on all these matters and to let the general public come forward, have an opportunity to see the bill, state their views, state their opinions on the various pieces of legislation, the various bills the government is proposing.

With this motion that I am placing before the House today there will be a period of some four weeks of time -- two in the latter part of March and two towards the middle of April -- which will be highly utilized for public hearings. People from all around Ontario will have the opportunity to speak to the government legislation, that legislation, I might say, some of which we just dealt with here earlier this afternoon.

Bill 84, for example, will improve public safety and streamline services and reduce costs in fire protection and prevention. The bill will ensure the effective delivery of fire protection services by municipalities with the assistance of the province of Ontario.

It's noteworthy that the public fire safety council will be strengthened to play a greater role in fire protection and also in public education, and of course the legislation will streamline various pieces of legislation which affect fire protection in Ontario, consolidating some nine separate statutes that we have at present, thereby cutting the red tape which has hampered delivery of fire services. We will have seven full days of public hearings on that bill.

Bill 98 is the Development Charges Act, and this is an interesting act that some municipalities have used in terms of dealing with new housing coming into those municipalities, whereby along with the approval for the housing, there is a price attached -- in some municipalities it's as high as over $20,000 for each house -- and that money goes into various pots to provide services, to provide roads to those new homes, sidewalks, sewers, libraries, in some cases schools. In some cases the money has gone to hospitals; in some cases the money has gone to city hall, to either make improvements or build civic centres, recreation complexes etc.

All of these are certainly worthwhile endeavours, but the question has been, is the amount of