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

April 29, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L182 - Tue 29 Apr 1997 / Mar 29 Avr 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL PROGRAM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION FINANCING

BLOOD DONATION

RACE RELATIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

BILL WARRENDER

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

AMBULANCE SERVICES

CHILD ABUSE

ONTARIO HYDRO

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

YOUNG OFFENDERS

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

LAKE ERIE YELLOW PERCH

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

TVONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

FIRE SAFETY

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARD RESTRUCTURING

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

FIRE SAFETY

CHILD CARE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICES

CORONER'S INQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

PUBLIC BEACHES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Northern Development and it is about his silence while he and his government download services to northern municipalities.

Minister, I have here an estimate of the cost of your downloading to the taxpayers of the township of Golden. The bottom line for Golden residents will be an increase of $1,115,557 because of this minister's dumping. This is in a small community with a population of 2,183 residents in 921 households.

A few more examples: The town of Fort Frances can expect a 58% increase in their mill rate thanks to the inaction of the minister; the township of Jaffray Melick, a 60% increase; Ignace, 102%. I can go on and on.

Minister, you stated in the document A Voice for the North, "No new mandates will be enacted upon municipalities unless appropriate funding is allocated." I say again to the minister that due to his lack of interest and his inaction, northern residents will be forced to pay higher taxes because of his dumping of services.

The results aren't good. I and my leader, Dalton McGuinty, will be taking the results of a survey done by our northern municipal critic, Rick Bartolucci. Again I tell you the results aren't good, and I'm sure you're about to hear from every northern municipality, should you be in attendance.

In closing, Minister, all I can say is that I hope this information that you bring back to the Premier doesn't lead to your firing as it did to your parliamentary assistant.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): As if it's not enough that we have a government with the worst environmental record in Ontario's history, now we're asked to endure the delirious ravings of the Minister of Environment. I refer to his op-ed piece in last Wednesday's Windsor Star. Oh, the minister sings a happy little song about how his government is not deregulating but reregulating. The minister asks if we need rules that make no sense and then goes on to offer up a couple of the most spurious examples, as if to suggest that all environmental regulation is just red tape, which seems to be a particular fetish of this government.

But that's not what this is about. That's a shameful smokescreen for the fact that this government has undertaken a radical, systematic dismantling of environmental protection and they've done it behind closed doors. If you won't listen to me, will you listen to the Environmental Commissioner, who warns that "ministries are...eliminating environmental safeguards behind closed doors" and who warns that the quality of our drinking water is being compromised by the actions of this government?

You haven't fooled the auditor, the Ombudsman, the Environmental Commissioner, health and environmental organizations, you haven't fooled the media, you haven't fooled the opposition and you most decidedly haven't fooled the people of Ontario.

We will continue to expose this government's environmental agenda for the shameful travesty that it is. They are loosening and eliminating environmental laws, closing down air and water quality monitoring stations, and on and on. It's shameful.

MCMASTER UNIVERSITY MEDICAL PROGRAM

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): McMaster University, in my riding of Hamilton West, has once again been recognized at the international level. Newsweek magazine is the latest periodical to attest to the world-class standards and innovations of McMaster University's medical program. McMaster University is the only medical school listed by Newsweek in its list of six schools. The Newsweek

article describes McMaster as "the granddaddy of alternative medical education," and indeed it is.

In 1965, when the university president, Dr Harry Thode, and founding dean, Dr John Evans, opened the program, they envisioned a teaching centre that would be at the forefront of research and medical service initiatives. Twenty-two years later, that is exactly what Hamilton enjoys in the McMaster medical program: a program that draws students from around the world for the highest standard of medical training available today.

It is an honour for me, as the member for Hamilton West, to salute McMaster for its recognition in a featured

article in Newsweek, and I know members join me in applauding the staff and medical students who have made this program what it is today and for leading the way for other medical institutions to follow.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): How many deaths and injuries in the workplace does it take to get the Harris government to realize that worker health and safety is important?

Yesterday during the national day of mourning, the community gathered at civic square and at the Steelworkers hall in Sudbury to try and figure out how any government could think about doing away with the world-renowned Occupational Disease Panel when as many as 6,000 Ontario workers die each year because of occupational disease.

We wonder how any government can seriously consider doing away with mandatory inquests into mining and construction workplace fatalities when 204 workers were killed in 1996.

We also wonder how any government can downplay the importance of health and safety in the workplace when there were more than 2.35 million workdays lost to the Ontario economy in 1996 due to occupational injuries, illness and death.

The barrier tape I have is no ordinary barrier tape. It has on it the X-rays of those who have been injured and died in the workplace.

I would like a page to bring it over to the Minister of Labour. Let her look at the broken hands, the cracked ribs, the fractured legs, the crushed skulls, the diseased lungs, and then maybe, just maybe, she will ensure that mandatory inquests take place and that the Occupational Disease Panel remains.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Parents and educators and students across Niagara, indeed across this province, live in daily fear for the future of their children, for our communities, our society and for the quality public education generations of Ontarians have built over the past decades, as they witness the gutting of public education by this government as it defunds public schools in Niagara and across Ontario, and as with its Bill 104 it eliminates local governance of education, and as it embarks on its orgy of privatization of essential and traditionally public services.

People like Alice Garon point out that "support staff jobs are the links of the chain that hold the board of education together," that "our future depends upon a well-educated populace, but with oversized classes, our students are paying far too much for the cutbacks that just go on and on and on" -- this government's cuts, this government's attacks on quality public education.

Andre Demers says this: "Each and every day I am constantly helping numerous students in a multitude of different chores." You see, he's a custodian, and his job is going to be privatized. This is a cruel and vicious and criminal attack on public education in the province of Ontario.

BLOOD DONATION

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today to call the attention of all members of this Legislature to a critical need in this province. There is danger of a critical blood shortage in Ontario.

It was reported over the Easter weekend that some hospitals could not have accommodated one more blood transfusion, their supply was so low.

Every 20 seconds in Canada, somebody needs blood. In central Ontario, 700 blood donors are needed each weekday to meet patient requirements in 61 area hospitals. Sixty per cent of Canadians will require blood or blood products in their lifetime, yet only 4% of us donate blood.

The Red Cross is providing the invaluable service of collecting blood donations. The Red Cross uses new, sterile equipment on each donor, so there's no risk of contracting disease through donating blood.

I'll be hosting a Red Cross donor clinic at the Eglinton Square Shopping Centre in Scarborough on May 13. I'd like to thank the merchants and the property manager of Eglinton Square.

Sadly, the need for blood increases on holiday weekends, and with the upcoming Victoria Day weekend, hospitals will again experience a strain on their blood supply. The Red Cross desperately needs donors to ensure that transfusions are available.

I am proud to support this excellent organization and urge all of my colleagues in the Legislature to get involved with their local

chapter of the Canadian Red Cross. Few organizations better reflect the Canadian tradition of voluntarism and of helping others in need.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I rise today to raise an issue of concern, I hope to all members of the Legislature, and that has to do with race relations in the province of Ontario.

My view of Canada is that it's like a flower garden and Canada has been fortunate to attract the best flowers from around the world to come and join with our first flower. But like every flower garden, weeds creep into it, and there is a weed called racism that all of us have to step up and make sure we tackle.

I'm concerned because the government, in at least two instances, has decided to cut back on its support for this area. One is in the Ministry of Education, where the division that was handling that I gather is now essentially gone. The other is in the Ministry of Citizenship, where the Anti-Racism Secretariat is essentially gone. I was struck as I was out on the weekend by a paper that had a headline "Hate Goes to High School."

I say to all of us that if we do not focus on this area -- our high schools do a terrific job on this, but they can't do it alone. I'm just alerting all of us that the government is shortsighted in trying to find money in this area. I think the government should reconsider its priorities. This is one area where, in my opinion, we cannot allow it to begin to fester.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): The Honourable John Snobelen began his career as Minister of Education and Training in this province by speaking to ministry staff and saying, "We need to invent a crisis." Invent a crisis? Well, he has done that. With the cuts in funding to education, with the trial balloons, with all the upheaval around changing local governance, with all the pressures on the system that were already there and all the changes that are being speculated about, parents and educators and students are all concerned about the future of education.

On Friday I attended a meeting of several hundred elementary school teachers in the city of East York. They were very disappointed that their own elected representatives didn't show up. They had invited the Honourable Dave Johnson over a month ago and unfortunately his office didn't even respond. John Parker, the member for York East, said the day before that he would be there and then called and left a message 20 minutes before the meeting saying he wouldn't be there.

No one was there from the government to explain, to defend, to talk to educators about their very real concerns about what is happening in the classroom and about the quality of education for our youngest kids in the classroom, the deterioration they see and what they fear.

It is incumbent upon the government that is making such change at such breakneck speed to get out there and talk to people, let them know what's happening, give them the answers, help them understand your changes.

BILL WARRENDER

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise today to honour the life of a great man, Bill Warrender, who recently passed away in Hamilton at the age of 88. Mr Warrender was a long-time family friend of one of my constituency staff.

It seems Bill Warrender was always representing his fellow citizens in Hamilton and indeed this province. He served as a controller, alderman and mayor of Hamilton. After serving in the RCAF during the Second World War, he entered provincial politics as a Tory MPP for Hamilton Centre. Bill Warrender served with premiers Frost and Robarts, holding four cabinet portfolios, including Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Bill Warrender, a distinguished lawyer, was appointed to the bench in 1963 and worked in the small claims and district courts for 21 years. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate of laws degree from his alma mater, McMaster University. Ontario Court of Justice Walter Stayshyn said, "He was a truly fine gentleman with a great love of people."

Bill Warrender, as the first chairman, was instrumental in the formation of Mohawk College. It was said he transformed Mohawk College from a single building on Wentworth Street into a modern miracle of education. Bill Warrender's son, William Robert, said although his dad was known as a great public figure, he was a great dad and a great person to emulate.

I ask all members of this assembly to pause and remember a true gentleman, friend and father, Bill Warrender, who gave a lifetime of service to his fellow citizens in Hamilton and the province.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to bring to your attention on a point of order what I believe is a breach of the standing orders, particularly standing order 106(g), which deals with the power by the standing committee on government agencies to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors to corporations in which the crown in the right of Ontario is a majority shareholder.

The specific breach I want to bring to your attention, Speaker, and ask you to rule on is that I believe the government, particularly I guess through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, is in breach of that standing order by virtue of not having submitted to that committee the review of the intended appointees to two bodies which are to come into effect as a result of the passage of Bill 103.

You will recall that under Bill 103 there were two bodies to be set up, one of them being the transition team and the other being the financial advisory board.

The specific reference in the bill sets out very clearly with respect to the transition team, under sections 16(1) and 16(2) of the legislation, and

section 16(1) reads, "There shall be a transition team consisting of one or more members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; the Lieutenant Governor in council may designate one of the members as chair"; and then in (2), "The transition team is a body corporate."

A similar provision in

section 9, subsections (1) and (2), deals with the financial advisory board, "There shall be a financial advisory board consisting of one or more members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate one of the members as chair," and (2) "The financial advisory board is a body corporate."

You have in the legislation, Speaker, two very clear designations of two bodies, the members of which are to be appointed by order in council, and two bodies which are made by the legislation to be bodies corporate; corporations therefore.

I want to bring to your attention that earlier this week, both yesterday with respect to the financial advisory board and on Friday with respect to the transition team, we had the release of the names of the people the government intends to appoint to those bodies.

We also received late yesterday afternoon the certificate which was sent to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and then obviously from there to the clerk of the standing committee on government agencies, which sets out the intended appointees to the various agencies, boards and commissions, under the signature of the Premier of decisions made at the last cabinet meeting, where I understand these appointments were made, and that certificate does not include the names of these individuals.

I then want to bring your attention again, Speaker, to standing order 106(g), which as I read out earlier indicates that among the roles the standing committee on government agencies has is the role to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors to corporations in which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder.

I would submit to you that one of these bodies is a board as set out under the standing order; the other is a corporation as set out under the standing order. In both cases there is an obligation, not a discretion as I believe the government will argue, but an obligation from the government to send the names of those intended appointees through the review process.

In this case that has not been done, although I find it interesting as a parallel, but it's only a parallel, that in a similar situation with respect to the body that's the equivalent of these two bodies under Bill 104, the Education Improvement Commission, the names of the chairs of that body were in fact sent through the process.

I would just submit to you, sir, that the government in not submitting these names is infringing on the standing orders as I understand them and would ask you to rule on that either today or at some point at your convenience.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr Speaker, to respond to the members opposite, the NDP set up the process in the past in which short-term appointments of one year or less were not reviewed by the standing committee. There are numerous examples of key NDP appointments which followed the short-term system and were not reviewed by the standing committee.

Anne Golden and the members of her task force, for example, were not reviewed by the committee and they were appointed for a year and a half. John Sweeney was appointed by the NDP for the education task force that took several years; that was not reviewed by the panel. John Sewell was appointed to redo the Planning Act, which took three years, and he was not reviewed by the committee.

I could also say with respect to the panel for the education task force that they are more of a permanent appointment. Their appointments are for four years, not short-term; a four-year appointment, which is considered long-term. The transition team is being appointed for seven months, which we consider to be short-term and therefore not subject to review by the committee.

Mr Silipo: Just briefly, in reply to the point made by the minister, Speaker, I would say to you in considering this point that it may very well be that in the past certain appointments have not gone through the process. That's by virtue of the fact that nobody complained about that process being followed.

What I'm saying to you is that in my view the standing orders are clear: They require that those intended appointees in fact go through the process. There is no other standing order that supersedes the standing order. It comes down to what is in the standing order and how that is interpreted and then applied. I believe it can only be interpreted in a way that says intended appointees have to be made subject to that review process.

The minister may be correct that in some cases in the past they have not. There may indeed be ones in the life of this government that may have gone through and I or others have not seen them or not objected to them. But the point is that the standing order is what needs to be applied. I'm bringing that to your attention today and would ask you to take a look at that and rule on that.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Just to reinforce the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Speaker, it's certainly our contention that the previous government under the NDP set up a process, and I think this is the key aspect here, in which short-term appointments of one year or less were not reviewed by the standing committee. The minister has given examples of that.

Further, I would say, strengthening that again, the previous government revised the standing orders to ensure that appointments were reviewed by the standing committee on government agencies. However, the practice under their government was not to review reappointments, appointments of civil servants and short-term appointments of one year or less. Certainly the transition team is being appointed for less than a year, at eight months.

Some of the examples the minister has alluded to that fit within that practice were Anne Golden, John Sweeney, also Gerry Caplan -- I'm not sure he mentioned Gerry Caplan -- and Monique Bégin on the Royal Commission on Learning, Lynn Williams on the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation, Frank Clifford on the Ontario College of Teachers implementation committee, and John Sewell, I think he mentioned, on the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario. So there are any number of examples that allude to the practice that was put in place by the former government in this regard.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thanks, to the member for Dovercourt, the municipal affairs minister and the government House leader. I'll reserve; I think I'll be able to report back probably very shortly, tomorrow I would think.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the minister responsible for women's issues, I want to go to the Deputy Premier.

I want to raise with you the issue of violence against women in Ontario and what your government has done to women. You may be aware that this morning a new study was released confirming that the number of Ontario women who are being murdered by their husbands or boyfriends is on the rise. We are also already aware of the fact that the number of incidents of violence against women in Ontario is on the rise.

Minister, you will shortly be drafting a budget. In that budget, as you are well aware, you will not only be giving a statement of account, you'll be giving a very real expression to the values you hold dear as government. I want to ask you, in light of this new, fresh evidence of violence against women in Ontario, are you going to restore the millions of dollars in cuts that you've already made to women's programs?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the leader of the official opposition, he knows full well that I can't tell him what's going to be in the budget next Tuesday. He's going to have to wait to see what it is.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You don't know.

Hon Mr Eves: That could be true too, I say to the member for Algoma, in some cases.

However, with respect to this specific study that he's talking about, he will know that the study was done covering the period of time from 1991 to 1994. We certainly take this issue very seriously. Governments now of all three political stripes in this province have struggled with this very important problem. There are several initiatives that this government is undertaking. We're spending about $100 million this year directed towards assisting women in our society here in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: The minister says that on behalf of his government he takes the issue of violence against women very seriously. Let me tell you how seriously he takes it. He has scrapped the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues; he has cut $5 million from the women's issues portfolio; he has stolen $1.6 million from programs designed to help those women who find themselves in need of protection.

Minister, once again I'm going to ask you: In the grand scheme of things, where are your priorities when it comes to women's issues and violence against women? We know that you are extremely committed to a tax cut. We know that you are very much committed to reducing government costs in Ontario. I want to ask you -- just answer this directly, then -- when you compare those two things against violence against women, where do women factor into that? As you well know, they're not here today. They're silent victims. Where is it that you stand on violence against women?

Hon Mr Eves: The leader of the official opposition will know, of course, of the initiatives this government has undertaken in the past few months.

They include passing a Victims' Bill of Rights; establishing and identifying protecting specific rights for victims of crime, many of whom are women; establishing the victim notification system, the automated information and referral service; establishing a $10.2-million victims' justice fund to provide services to victims of crime, unfortunately predominantly women in our society today; $11 million reinvested in nine shelters, facilities for women; and launching two new domestic court pilot projects in the city of Toronto and North York to deal solely with domestic assault cases.

Those are some of the initiatives that our government has taken in the past few months.

Mr McGuinty: There is a massive human deficit that is mounting in this province. You have become fixated in an unhealthy way with the fiscal deficit at the expense of people in this province. When you cut 24-hour crisis intervention hotlines, human costs add up. When you cut community counselling services, human costs add up. When you cut programs to help women from returning to abusive situations, human costs add up.

I have raised with the Minister of Community and Social Services the fact that you have stolen $17 million from Ontario's children's aid societies. I'm now raising with you directly the fact that you have taken approximately $10 million, unreturned, from programs designed to help women who are victims of violence.

You've got the money for a tax cut that's going to total nearly $5 billion, but you can't come up with the paltry sums necessary to provide protection to children and women in Ontario who are the victims of violence. Minister, will you return that funding in your budget?

Hon Mr Eves: To the leader of the official opposition, first of all, he and other members in his party repeatedly say that the tax cut is costing the province $6 billion.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Well, it did, five billion.

Hon Mr Eves: Five billion, then. The reality is, as he knows, that revenue in the province is up this year -- not down $5 billion, up $1.2 billion, despite the fact that we reduced taxes.

I don't know what his definition of "upper-income Ontarians" is, but I can tell him that fully 61% of that tax cut goes to people making between $25,000 and $75,000 a year. If that's your definition of an upper-income Ontarian, then yours is very different than mine and, I must say, very different from the rest of society's.

I might also say that under the Who Does What exercise, we have assumed the entire responsibility for funding of women's services. We will make sure that they are protected. We are spending almost $100 million --

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, please come to order.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the Ipperwash affair and the role the government played in it.

I want to be clear on what the government says its role was in it. The Premier has said, "At no time...was there any direction given by any political staff or any politicians as to what the OPP should do or how they should carry out their job." He went on to say, "There were no files, there were no records, because we had no involvement."

Can you confirm, Minister, that it's the government's position that there was no involvement and the OPP operated with no government input, direction or advice?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I can confirm that. Certainly that's been the position of the government and it continues to be the position that it is an accurate assessment of the situation. In fact, although I have not spoken to the commissioner, I noted in the press clippings today, which are circulated and made available to all members, that the commissioner is quoted in one of the print media today repeating his position that there was no "political pressure from Queen's Park to get tough with the demonstrators."

Mr Phillips: I will say we have a different opinion from the minister. The log at the Ipperwash police command post paints quite a different picture. I will read you a few quotes from that log. This is Mr Beaubien, your member, the Conservative member, who was at the command post: "The inspector questioned, `Is there anything from the Solicitor General?' Mr Beaubien advised, `Well, they're meeting today.'"

The commanding officer states -- and this, by the way, is the day of the shooting -- because the mayor raised some questions about the residents: "The Premier and the Solicitor General want to deal with this. There's an interministerial meeting this morning to deal with it." At another point -- this was the day before -- from the command police headquarters, "There is a conference call going on with your committee here at Queen's Park."

The question is this: How can you reconcile what the Premier has said with what these police logs show?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think the member is making a long reach, as he frequently does, with respect to this issue. I think it was clearly indicated, it's been made public on a number of occasions with respect to the committee established to deal with these kinds of situations formed by the former government, that they were meeting on a regular basis to monitor the situation. I think that's quite an appropriate role for them to play, so I cannot identify with the negative connotations the member opposite is trying to raise with respect to those meetings occurring. I think they were appropriate to take place and that the committee performed a function it was established to perform.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raise this is because the Premier has said that there was no involvement by the government, no advice to the OPP, and yet it shows during the two days before the shooting that the Conservative member was there regularly. He was referring to the Solicitor General; the inspector wanted to know what the Solicitor General thought.

We clearly believe that the government and the Premier played a key role in this affair. The only way we will find out is through a public inquiry. We now need a decision from the government. Will the government commit today to hold a public inquiry? We understand that there may be legal reasons why you need to wait until after the trial, but there is no reason why you cannot commit today to take the cloud over the government. Will you commit today to hold a public inquiry? I'll just be very clear on our request: Will you agree today to hold a public inquiry and start it at the earliest possible date that does not jeopardize the cases?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think it has been indicated on a number of occasions by the Attorney General, the Premier and myself that it would be imprudent for us to make a comment in respect to that particular request, given the fact that there are a number of civil actions under way, some criminal proceedings under way, an appeal, apparently, with respect to one criminal action that's been dealt with by the courts. Again, as we've indicated, when all these matters are behind us, I think the government will be prepared to make a decision.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): It's interesting that the Solicitor General, the member for Leeds-Grenville, would never have taken that kind of response if he were on this side of the House.

The Speaker: Who is the question to, please?

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Attorney General on the same matter, in light of the comments of his colleague. The Attorney General will know that the verdict yesterday in Sarnia does not deal with the role of the government in the decisions that led to the police buildup that led to the shooting of Dudley George at Ipperwash. We know that the Premier's office was represented at the committee. We know that the committee initially talked about communication with the occupiers to try and negotiate an end to the occupation. We know that a quite unusual occurrence was the member for Lambton being at the police cordon and that he was in communication with the Premier's office.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Wildman: Doesn't the Attorney General believe now, in light of the judge's decision yesterday, that the government should at least commit to a public inquiry into the government's role in this affair?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I certainly will adopt the answer that was given by the Solicitor General moments ago. There are further charges pending, there is a civil action, there is a sentencing that is pending, there is a possible appeal, and it would be imprudent to have those discussions and make those decisions at this time.

Mr Wildman: The Premier himself has said, "There are two issues" to be discovered here. "One is how the OPP carries out their duties. And two is government policy." The charges that the Attorney General refers to deal partially, at least, with the first one. Will the Attorney General make a commitment now to have an inquiry into the second one?

What exactly happened on September 6, between the time the OPP was prepared to negotiate an end to the occupation and the decision to build up police forces that night that led to the fracas and the death of Dudley George? We need to know. The public needs to know. Will you commit to inquiring into government policy and the role of the government in this affair?

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly, if the member had gone on with the quote, it would have indicated that the Premier was quite satisfied with government policy, and it's quite clear that the government policy, in so far as this occupation was concerned, was to take steps to obtain a civil injunction. The record is very clear in terms of the material that was filed with the court, in terms of the efforts that were made to notify the court and the OPP and the occupiers, that the government's position was to obtain a civil injunction. The record is clear that that was in fact done.

Mr Wildman: We know that at 1:45 on September 6, the OPP issued a release saying they were going to attempt to negotiate an end to the occupation. We know that the committee met that day and a decision was made to seek an injunction to end the occupation. We know that injunction was going to be heard at 11 am the next day. We also know that that evening there was a police buildup of forces that led to the fracas that led to the death of Dudley George.

What happened between the time the OPP decided to negotiate, between the time the committee decided to seek an injunction and that evening? Who decided they should circumvent the injunction and use force to end the occupation that led to the death of Dudley George? That's what we need to know. That's why we need a public inquiry.

Hon Mr Harnick: The member leaves out one very important factual aspect of this: the fact that that evening the court received documents so the judge could be prepared and have an opportunity to read them the day before the civil injunction was to be brought. Those documents were also sent by fax transmission to the Ontario Provincial Police by the government lawyer, asking that, if possible, those documents be delivered to the occupiers so they would know that the intention of the government was very clear; it was to seek a civil injunction the next day.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Solicitor General with respect to the same matter: We know that Dudley George is the first aboriginal person to be killed by police in Canada in this century with respect to a land dispute claim. We know that. We know that he was shot dead by gunfire from an OPP firearm and that an officer has been found guilty.

Judge Fraser, a learned and competent trial judge, found as a fact, and these are his words, "The story of the rifle and the muzzle flash were concocted" after the fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I can't hear you. I'm having difficulty. Could the meetings take place outside the chamber, please.

Mr Kormos: Thank you, Speaker. This is of the utmost importance to all Ontarians.

Judge Fraser found as a fact that: "The story of the rifle and the muzzle flash were concocted" after the fact "in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man was shot." Dudley George was not armed, nor were any of the other occupiers. We do know that the OPP were given orders to "Get the" -- expletive -- "Indians out of the park."

Solicitor General, it's surely got to be in your interest as head of the OPP to have a full and public airing of the events that led up to the shooting of Dudley George. Once again, will you commit today to a public inquiry --

The Speaker: Thank you. Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Runciman: No one on this side of the House has ruled out an inquiry. I think it's been indicated by the members of the government who have spoken on this issue that we want the various matters that are before the courts to be resolved before a decision will be taken. Also, the member will appreciate the fact that there remains the possibility of an inquest, which will be the chief coroner's call with respect to that decision.

A number of matters have to be dealt with through the courts and possibly through a coroner's inquest. I understand the member's concerns and we respect them, but we also have to respect the various processes we have to go through with before we can make that decision.

Mr Kormos: Clearly, a coroner's inquest at this point is quite redundant. We know how Dudley George died. We know the cause of death. We know that it was OPP gunfire. There's no dispute about that from any quarter in the province.

You've heard reference to the Premier's comments: "[T]wo issues.... One is how the OPP carries out their duties. Two is government policy. Nothing I've seen or heard causes me concern with government policy." Solicitor General, the Premier is trying to make a scapegoat of the OPP and in particular Sergeant Deane. In fact, he's agreeing with the judge's verdict and confirming that there's something wrong with how the OPP carried out their duties.

I put the question to you whether or not you agree with the Premier and his analysis of the situation, that it's the OPP who are at fault and nothing that came from any government quarter.

Hon Mr Runciman: I am not going to comment on a court case which we now understand will be appealed. But I will say with respect to the possibility of a coroner's inquest that the member suggests it would be set on very narrow terms. I think we know from the history of coroners' inquests that the chief coroner has a great deal of latitude in terms of setting the terms of reference for an inquest and has looked at a variety of issues, including use of force, in other inquests.

I think it's quite appropriate that if indeed there is an inquest following the resolution of the court proceedings, the chief coroner will have wide latitude to take a look at a variety of concerns that have been expressed by members of this Legislature and the public.

Mr Kormos: Judge Fraser's findings of fact, based on the evidence that was before him, are clearly that OPP officer Sergeant Deane's evidence was concocted, that it wasn't true. He rejected it entirely. He as much as said that it was perjury, it wasn't the case.

Clearly the OPP, since the shooting, developed a pattern of conduct that led to this fabrication of evidence. The only conclusion that Ontarians can reach is that there is a coverup that was participated in by the OPP, which led to the fabricated evidence and of which the fabricated evidence was part and parcel. The coverup, one has to infer, has to be of the government's role and their directions given to Ontario Provincial Police offers at Ipperwash Park.

You surely have to be as concerned about that as any other Ontarian and as interested in determining the truth and determining a process whereby these tragic consequences can be avoided in the future. If you're not going to call a public inquiry, what process are you going to embark on to ensure that this doesn't happen again?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think I've outlined, as have the Attorney General and the Premier on a number of occasions, the various processes that will be followed, and we've indicated and made a commitment to do that. With respect to the question of an inquiry, that decision will be taken when all the other matters are resolved, are behind us. There's also the continuing possibility that the chief coroner will see the need for an inquest. That remains a possibility. Those are the steps that will be followed and followed quite appropriately.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health and it concerns land ambulances. Eight months from now, under your new division of responsibility, local government will assume 100% of the cost of land ambulances. My question today is specifically about a piece of geography in Ontario and how this ambulance policy is going to work. I want to talk about Algonquin Provincial Park, a piece of Ontario real estate owned by Her Majesty in right of the Ontario government, where annually one million people go to vacation.

How, effective January 1, 1998, is your ambulance policy going to work in Algonquin Park for those million people? How much are they going to pay and to whom are they going to pay whatever charge is required?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member knows that final decisions have not been taken with respect to the Who Does What exercise. With respect to the details, at the end of the day, a shift in where the tax dollars are coming from, whether they're coming out of the income tax or coming out of the property tax to replace the education tax that comes off, over $5 billion worth, won't change one iota the service coverage of land ambulances in this province.

Mr Conway: Let's be very clear. I think I know why the Minister of Health is squirming. He understands what bad policy this is. While he seeks to integrate and streamline the health care system, he's got real fragmentation and real fracturing in land ambulances. So accepting what the government has already announced and decided, on January 1, 1998, local government will pay the full cost of land ambulance services.

A million people annually visit Algonquin Park, which is owned by the provincial government and where there is no local government. My question remains, under the new policy to take effect in eight months' time, who is going to pay the ambulance service charges in Algonquin Provincial Park? How much, and to whom will those payments be made?

Hon Mr Wilson: The question is moot, given the fact that a number of our land ambulance services are owned and operated by municipalities or the private sector now. Only 10 of the 172 are actually run by the province.

The money, obviously, if final decisions are taken on Who Does What -- there are tremendous areas right now --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member obviously doesn't want an answer. The fact of the matter is, municipalities collectively will have the responsibility if the Who Does What final decisions are taken. The discussion now is, will municipalities collectively have the responsibility? I expect they will take that responsibility collectively to make sure that the province is covered, and the laws will be designed to ensure that responsibility covers all of the province. They will take that responsibility as seriously as I do and as seriously as I hope the honourable member does as an elected member at a different level of government. I know the local level --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. New question, third party.

CHILD ABUSE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services and it's with respect to the Child and Family Services Act.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): You want to be worried about that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, member for Beaches-Woodbine. Members for Windsor-Sandwich and Sudbury, can you come to order, please? We're into a new question. Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Minister, none of us on any side of this Legislative Assembly or any member of the public can read the horrific accounts of child abuse and child murder without feeling a sense of absolute rage and a weighty sense of a collective failure, that we've failed these precious children. I know you and all of our colleagues in this Legislature would share that.

You have indicated a number of steps you're taking. The one I want to talk to you about is with respect to a review of the legislation. You're quoted as saying that the balance of deciding when or whether to take a child from the home has to be examined, especially in the wake of the number of infant deaths due to abuse.

In the early 1980s there was an extensive review that led to the current Child and Family Services Act. There were green papers, there was a white paper, draft legislation; there were public consultations and hearings. All parties were involved in drafting a very delicate balance in this legislation. I hope that all parties can be involved now in the review. I have sent you a letter asking if you would refer the Child and Family Services Act review to the standing committee on social development. Minister, will you join with us in seeking a joint solution?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I certainly agree that there needs to be considerable debate and consultation in any review of the Child and Family Services Act. That legislation was written after very careful review, and if there are to be any changes, I think we need to have another very, very careful review.

I appreciate the member's suggestion about the standing committee. That's certainly one option. She's mentioned green papers or white papers or other kinds of public consultation. I think those are all excellent suggestions and I will consider them very seriously.

Ms Lankin: Minister, at this point I'm not asking you to create another green paper or white paper. We have had that. We have a piece of legislation. I believe that legislation could be referred to a committee. This is a way of expediting an all-party examination of it, and let's bring forward the people in the system to tell us how the system is failing our children, not just the legislation, but how the system is failing. Let's work together to find appropriate solutions that we can add to the list of initiatives you've already taken. Every day, as you have said, is a day too long in terms of finding the right protections to ensure that no more children die in these abusive situations.

Minister, I appreciate your reviewing that. Please get back to us quickly with an answer that says yes, you will send the legislation to the legislative committee. Let us work with you to find the appropriate solutions.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The first thing I want to be sure of is that any particular consultation process that we undertake is indeed going to be helpful. The task force that's occurring right now with the coroner's task force, which the children's aid society is part of and which the ministry is supporting, I think is a first step in that process. There are excellent recommendations that have been coming forward. I think they need to be seriously reviewed. The standing committee may well be another way to continue the review. I'm quite prepared to consider that seriously once we get those recommendations back.

I'm also quite prepared to invite the honourable member to participate in whatever review process we have, because I do take her at her word that she is interested in assisting and helping in a non-partisan way, as I'm sure all the members in the House would be.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. As you know, Minister, my riding is referred to as the Chemical Valley of Canada. We have many, many industries and companies discharging waste water into the river. However, it has come to my attention that the Ontario Hydro station near Sarnia is improving the quality of waste water discharged in the St Clair River. I would ask you, Minister, to comment on the improvement and its direct environmental effects on my area and around Sarnia.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I understand the importance of the Ontario Hydro works in the Lambton area. It's a high employer and a good environmental citizen.

Currently, Ontario Hydro is constructing an effluent treatment facility in the Lambton generating station to ensure that boiler waste water discharged to the St Clair River more than meets the highest standards of my ministry. Air and water emissions from the Lambton generating station have always met the MOEE regulatory standards, but standards for discharges are being made stricter than previous governments had. Therefore, in order to meet these new standards, Ontario Hydro is putting forward a new clarifier system in order to treat its waste water from the boilers.

The new facility at Lambton ensures that water discharges from the station will more than satisfy the new tougher regulations we're putting forward.

Mr Boushy: Mr Minister, you spoke of the environmental effects of the new water clarifying system. I would like you to mention something on the economic impacts of such initiatives taking place near my riding of Sarnia.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm pleased to inform the honourable member that this is not only good for the environment, but it's good for the economy. On the one hand, Ontario Hydro is surpassing the environmental regulations. On the other hand, the $10-million project will create 40 new construction jobs through a local contractor. It is estimated that 60% of the estimated $10-million cost will be spent locally on materials and labour. Currently, the Lambton generating station employs 330 regular staff, and I know the member is really pleased about that because he's always fighting for jobs in his area.

I would also like to point out that a number of significant environmental improvements have been made at the plant in the last few years. For example, in 1994, Ontario Hydro brought into operation a scrubber system that reduces sulphur dioxide emissions by 90%. The scrubber process produces a gypsum byproduct that is sold to a drywall manufacturer. This is another example of a win-win situation.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Attorney General. The Attorney General over the last few months has assured this House on repeated occasions that his plan for the family support plan office is working well and that he'll iron out the bugs. In spite of hundreds of cases that have been raised, in spite of repeated concerns, things don't seem to get any better.

In January of this year, one of my constituents approached your office about having their family withdrawn from the plan. After repeated requests, nothing happened. Finally, on January 27 we faxed the MPPs hotline. Instead of the normal seven-day wait, we had a 10-day wait. We had to refax and got specific instructions with respect to how to withdraw. Finally, on April 7 of this year, that family was withdrawn from the family support plan. How do you justify that and what do you say to that family in terms of the money that's still being tied up?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the question from the member because we are attempting to provide greater access to the family support plan by clients who need the service than existed before. We are making some significant progress. The plan is not perfect. We still have a long way to go in that regard.

But the member raises a very important question, and the important question is the need for people to be in the plan when they can otherwise pay their money without having their support needs institutionalized. Certainly one of the goals we have is to ensure we can develop an opting out process so that those who don't wish to be in the plan, those who don't need the plan to institutionalize what they're doing, won't be forced to be within the plan. We were working to develop that process and I hope that will be ready very shortly.

Mr Duncan: Attorney General, as to the family I spoke of, it's a situation where the mother had custody of two children and she was diagnosed with cancer in December last year. By voluntary agreement she agreed to transfer responsibility and custody for the children back to the father of the children in January. The father of the children is on unemployment insurance. The woman passed away three days before your office responded to the family, and that family, that lives only on unemployment insurance, continues to pay into the family support plan without getting any money back.

It is an absolutely irresponsible response you've given this House today and in the past. Your trivial answers are too late for my constituent and they're too late for the hundreds of other families that have been so devastated by your lack of action and lack of willingness to face reality. Will you come to terms with a problem that's facing thousands of people in this province and deal with it immediately so no more tragedies of this nature can happen?

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly, if the member would provide me with the details of that particular case, I will do everything I can to deal with it.

As I've indicated, we have put money into the plan. We have developed better technology to ensure we can transfer money more quickly. We're making every attempt to increase the number of callers who get through to the plan. We've gone from 6% to 50%. It's still not good enough. The family support plan is now disbursing 12% more money to women and children on a weekly basis than it did a year ago and we are endeavouring to provide that better service. If the member provides me with the details, if there is a problem, I will do my utmost to ensure it's resolved.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Question to the Solicitor General: Solicitor General, recently you were quoted in the news media as indicating you were considering consulting with respect to the police duty to cooperate and the SIU protocol. You don't have a very good track record when it comes to consultation. With respect to Bill 105, you totally disregarded community groups while you spent months consulting with the police stakeholders.

It's imperative that on a consultation with respect to police duty to cooperate,

section 113, sub (9) of the Police Services Act, and a new SIU protocol, community groups get equal opportunity to provide input. All we're asking of you today, Solicitor General, is to commit yourself to a full, open and public consultation, not only with police stakeholders but also with various community groups, all of whom represent people of Ontario and have a strong interest in this consultation process.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): No final commitments have been made with respect to this issue. I did indicate on the weekend that we were considering it and taking a look at the whole question with respect to the protocol and the possibility of a consultation.

As the member knows, there has been an inability to reach a consensus in the past but I feel it's worth another try to see if we can indeed achieve a consensus. Certainly it would be my feeling that any consultation process would be open, would try to hear the input of anyone who had a view with respect to this issue, and that if we make a decision to establish a task force to review this issue, we would have representation on that task force from community groups.

Mr Kormos: Solicitor General, it's imperative that the matter of police duty to cooperate be addressed. The failure of police chiefs to enforce

section 113, sub (9) and the various

interpretations of it has hindered several recent SIU investigations into serious killings of citizenry.

You've got 105 before the committee. You should know that practically every community member who appeared before the justice committee expressed concern that Bill 105 totally disregarded the issue of police duty to cooperate. You know as well that even the police aren't enchanted by the contents of Bill 105. In light of the fact that you should and are considering this consultation process, why don't you defer Bill 105 until such time as the issue of duty to cooperate with police can be dealt with in a fair and open public process?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think during the consultation process we respected concerns related to the continuation of the SIU under the Ministry of the Attorney General. It was originally established under the Ministry of the Solicitor General. We recognized that that perception, and more than perception, that reality of independence had to be retained. We've also recognized the concerns of not only community groups but a range of other people across this province with respect to the whole question of duty to cooperate.

That's why I've indicated we're taking a look at the establishment of a task force to consult with the public and make recommendations, and hopefully achieve a consensus with respect to a protocol which will direct the operations of the SIU in its relationships with police and their responsibilities in the future.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Solicitor General. Many people in my riding of Durham East are very supportive of our Solicitor General's approach to the young Offenders Act, and at the same time they're very critical of federal Justice Minister Allan Rock. Recently I understand that the federal government has proposed a new funding arrangement with respect to the Young Offenders Act and that these proposals reduce the federal spending and treat Ontario unfairly. Minister, give the public some support or your understanding of these cutbacks and particularly in their dealing with this serious public safety concern.

Interjections.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The reaction of the Liberal members opposite is typical with respect to their concerns or with the public's concerns related to the Young Offenders Act and young offenders in this province.

The reality is that the federal government's participation in funding for young offenders has fallen over the years from originally 50% of costs incurred by the province to about 30% now. Under the new proposal proposed by Mr Rock and the federal Liberal government, Ontario will see another $3-million cut from the federal transfers to fund our young offenders programs in this province. Ontario will be the only province in Canada cut back by the federal Liberal government with respect to young offenders.

In my capacity as Solicitor General, with the Attorney General -- we pressured the federal government and the federal justice committee to make substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act to realize the concerns of people right across this country. They have ignored us. What have they done instead? They've cut back funding to Ontario.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister, for a very, very thorough response. It's once again the federal Liberal government downloading unfairly on to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I don't think the member should go there. It's unparliamentary, yes, and there are names they may come back with that you may not like. Member for Durham East.

Mr O'Toole: It's apparent I certainly touched a nerve. Our minister in his response was very, very clear that this is an issue where the federal Liberal government is lacking responsibility and once again giving Ontario the short end of the stick. The federal justice minister, Allan Rock, certainly owes you and the people of Ontario an explanation. Could you tell the members here today any other proposed funding changes that may negatively affect the people of Ontario.

Hon Mr Runciman: The federal government is not only cutting their funding for young offenders in Ontario, they also want to now set our priorities. As an example, Ontario is embarking on an innovative program called strict discipline for repeat young offenders. We have very significant recidivism rates in this province, over 60% of young offenders coming back into the system. We feel it's critically important that we try new measures, and strict discipline is one of those new initiatives, which the federal government is now saying they will not fund. It will be a low priority, when we're trying to do something innovative to try to reduce recidivism with young offenders.

What they're saying is, "We're going to give you less money; we're going to ignore your concerns and the concerns of Ontario citizens about the Young Offenders Act; and we're going to determine the priorities for your citizens." I want to tell the people of this province and the federal government that that is not acceptable. We simply will not accept it; we will fight it.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is for the Minister of Transportation and it concerns a statement he made yesterday about the scheme of offloading highways on to municipalities. I've spoken to the minister on many occasions. The minister stated that he was downloading, and this is his quote: "only highways that no longer serve a purpose as a provincial highway." He went on to say, "We have transferred highways that are in good condition, and for the ones we are transferring that need the work, we're supplying monetary funds."

Come on, Minister. A nice answer, but neither of those statements is a reality for many municipalities across Ontario, particularly in SD&G. The road needs $15 million of work and at least $8.5 million to make it reasonable; instead you've provided $5 million. Where do you think the municipality is suddenly going to get an extra $3 million to pay for the construction?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for clarifying what I said. That is exactly what I said, and I will stand behind what I said, because this government is transferring highways that are no longer provincial highways; they serve mainly the purpose of local roads. Highways that we are transferring, we are transferring in good condition, and the ones that are not, we are making funds available to them so those highways will be in good condition.

Mr Cleary: We are talking about 72 kilometres of old Highway 2 across my riding in east Grenville, a road that the counties didn't even want but they had to take. It's a minimum of $8.5 million to repair it, and you're offering $5 million. Even your cabinet colleague whose riding has a portion of this highway running through it admits that the road needs extra money.

On April 2 in a news article, you already personally reviewed this with the member for SD&G, so could you please confirm here today that you will indeed give additional dollars to the united counties -- and I mean additional dollars, not infrastructure money, because of the tri-level funding badly needed to rebuild other areas of basic infrastructure. You didn't answer my first question.

Hon Mr Palladini: I'd just like to remind the honourable member that he answered his own question, but I did meet with the eastern wardens and certainly the conversations were very explicit and understanding. We understood each other. Also, as far as the funds that we have allocated on the highways that we are transferring, I think it's a fair process and we are treating municipalities fairly.

I just want to reiterate what I said yesterday, that we are taking $5.4 billion out of the residential taxes because of education and I believe there's going to be money available for these municipalities to do the repairs if they are going to be needing repairs later on.

I also want to say this: We have put aside $800 million that municipalities will be able to draw from in case the transfers and the funds are not available. Plus, on top of that, we have $1 billion as an ongoing fund that municipalities can draw from.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, a report funded by your government and released today reveals the shocking statistic that over the last four years 62 women per year were killed by a spouse or boyfriend. The chilling statistic found in the research shows that the women who are most at risk are those estranged from a spouse and those who have a history of violence in the relationship.

With this evidence in front of you today, we wonder why your government would embark on a direction of cutting and so-called rationalizing the shelter services that provide protection for these women. Will you reinstate the funding for shelters and second-stage housing, the services that those women need to stay alive? Will you reinstate the funding to at least the 1995 level?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you to the honourable member for the question. If she's referring to the study I'm familiar with, it releases statistics between 1991 and 1994 and statistics between 1974 and 1990, which do show some very alarming facts.

We take the issue very seriously and, unlike other governments, we are prepared to ask very difficult questions about how can we do a better job with the services and the programs we have. That's one of the reasons why we have asked the questions of the community, why my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues has gone out and done the consulting she has done, so we can improve the services we are offering to women. That is also one of the reasons that the government, under the Who Does What initiative, was prepared to assume the full cost of the funding for shelters, because we do believe it's a very important support network for those women who are abused.

Ms Churley: Is there one woman over there in that Tory caucus standing up for women in this province? I am surprised that not one of you is indicating that you are standing and speaking up for women, the most vulnerable in the province, at that cabinet table.

Minister, today on CBC Radio one of the authors of the research, Rosemary Gartner, stated that overwhelmingly the women who are at risk are women who are separated from their spouse. What they need is support for that period. Those are the very services your government is cutting. The evidence is in front of you now. Court proceedings do not save lives. Your ministry cut all operating support for second-stage shelters. Those are what save women's lives. Will you commit to doing something to turning around the situation? Will you reinstate, at the very least, the funding for second-stage housing?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, I shall ignore the what I found rather offensive comments she made about the commitment of women --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: This government, as has been said earlier today, has undertaken many actions to support women who are the victims of violence. We are spending $100 million on these programs. This is more spending than other provinces per capita are putting forward. I believe we have a track record which indicates that we do care and that we are putting forward programs that will work, programs that will actually help support women who are in abusive situations.

LAKE ERIE YELLOW PERCH

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Sunday morning my children and I were on the pier in Port Dover, along with many weekend fishermen. People were catching sunfish, bowhead, the odd mud puppy, but the vast majority caught were Lake Erie yellow perch.

Minister, I understand you originally contacted officials in Ohio expressing concerns about that state overharvesting yellow perch in Lake Erie. I know in Ontario both recreational and commercial fishermen are concerned about this. Can you give us more details, please?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for Norfolk for the question. The member is correct. I recently wrote Ohio officials to let them know that Ontario is very upset over the overfishing in Lake Erie.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hodgson: I know that to members of the opposition this may not be a big issue, but commercial fishing and recreational fishing are an important issue for the province of Ontario. This is the third year in a row that Ohio has exceeded its share of the total allowable catch of Lake Erie yellow perch and this situation cannot continue. I know the opposition doesn't care about this issue, but I can tell you there are a lot of people in Ontario who do.

Ontario has worked very hard in recent years to manage the yellow perch stocks so that they will recover from the serious decline that began in 1990. We have every right to expect similar results from Ohio, that it will be changed and corrected for the future.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. It was about mud puppies, I think.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We have a unanimous consent on this. Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Riverdale has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Premier concerning the Environmental Commissioner's report. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent that the member for Northumberland be permitted to respond.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? Agreed.

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to the petition.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, minister responsible for women's issues; Premier Mike Harris; and all members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative government.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, urge you to reject the recommendations of the Framework for Action on the Prevention of Violence Against Women in Ontario report.

"We are supportive of the work currently being done by community-based sexual assault and rape crisis centres and women's shelters. We strongly oppose any cutbacks in funding for these vital services.

"We find recommendations such as those to limit a woman's stay in a shelter to 24 to 48 hours and to eliminate community-based rape crisis and sexual assault centres to be outrageous and unacceptable."

This is signed by 4,755 women and men in southwestern Ontario and I am proud to affix my signature.

TVONTARIO

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): This is a petition with respect to the preservation of a publicly owned TVOntario and the funding of this educational centre.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My petition that I have before me was organized by Marjorie Archambault. It concerns health care cutbacks and reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we wish this petition to be signed in favour of two hospitals kept open with one board for the city of Cornwall, Ont."

There are 914 signatures and I've also signed the petition.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by over 1,000 people, and it states as follows:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "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."

I affix my signature with thousands of others.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas Peterborough has the professionals to qualify as a health leader of the province;

"Whereas we especially have a large number of radiologists and the costs for patients needing MRIs to go to Toronto are escalating;

"Whereas delays in testing are detrimental to the health of patients;

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

"Peterborough, with a base hospital serving 300,000 people, should have the next MRI unit in Ontario."

I agree and affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is signed by hundreds of my constituents and was presented to me when I was visiting the schools of Manitoulin.

SCHOOL BOARD RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I wish to present a petition with respect to Bill 104 to the Legislature.

NON-INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have one which I will read to the members of the assembly.

"To the government of Ontario:

"Whereas non-instructional staff of boards of education provide an important and essential service to schools in Ontario;

"Whereas the school system functions best, in the interest of its students, when all of its employees work in harmony and coordination and with the kind of expertise that comes with continuity, coordination and experience;

"Whereas Bill 104 encourages the privatization and outsourcing of non-instructional positions and the resulting loss of jobs, cutting of wages and salaries, and removal of employment benefits for people with comparatively moderate incomes;

"Whereas dedicated educational employees are having their lives severely disrupted so that the Harris government can finance an income tax cut that benefits the wealthiest people the most;

"We, the undersigned, request that Bill 104 be withdrawn and any future legislation not call for the outsourcing and privatization of educational jobs."

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

FIRE SAFETY

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a petition that was presented to me today from Tim Calhoun of 71 Centrefield Drive in Courtice, 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."

It's my pleasure to present this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition in regard to the current child care crisis in Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Tory government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas the concept of affordable, accessible and quality child care is a basic, important, fundamental right for many members of our community who are either unemployed and enrolled into a training program or are working single parents or where both parents are working; and

"Whereas if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the Jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to the child care workers,

"Therefore we, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care workers of our Parkdale and High Park communities, urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across our province, and restore funding to their previous levels."

I have affixed my signature to this document because I'm in total agreement with it.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of some of the residents and constituents of the riding of Bruce. It is addressed to the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, minister responsible for women's issues, Premier Mike Harris and all members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative government.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, urge you to reject the recommendations of the Framework for Action on the Prevention of Violence Against Women in Ontario report.

"We are supportive of the work currently being done by community-based sexual assault and rape crisis centres, women's shelters and women's advocacy centres. We strongly oppose any cutbacks in funding for these vital services.

"We find recommendations such as those to limit a woman's stay in a shelter to 24 to 48 hours and to eliminate community-based rape crisis and sexual assault centres to be outrageous and unacceptable. We are especially concerned that women-focused services will be eliminated."

I will affix my name to the petition.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Honourable Chris Hodgson, Minister of Northern Development and Mines:

"We, the people of northern Ontario, say no to the closure of the resident geologist office in Cobalt and the mining recorders offices in Kirkland Lake and Timmins."

I affix my name to this petition.

CORONER'S INQUEST RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas there was a serious accident on Highway 401 near Waterloo regional road 20 on June 16, 1994; and

"Whereas one life probably would have been saved had there been an emergency entrance to 401 for the air volunteer fire department;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implement the recommendations of the coroner's inquest."

I'll sign this, and it's been signed by 165 of my constituents.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here which is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario and to the Honourable Michael Harris, Premier of Ontario. It's signed by Karima Lutzak of Downing Street, Terry Robinson of Aragon Road, C.A. Peters of Rideau Street in Kingston, among others of these 200 or so people. It reads as follows:

"The citizens of Ontario and your Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation agree that this province has one of the great library systems in the world. This system has been built by citizens like me in every Ontario community serving on local library boards, with the decision-making power to promote, protect and create libraries that respond to our own communities;

"I request that you guarantee in your new legislation citizen-majority library boards and free access to all library information resources, the foundation of lifelong education."

I've affixed my signature to the petition and I am in total agreement with it.

PUBLIC BEACHES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition from George Lawrence, signed by hundreds of property owners in Tiny township concerning the continued preservation of public beaches through the Land Titles Act.

"We, the undersigned, register our objections to a private developer's application for title of Georgian Bay beachfront property, which has been used widely by the public for hundreds of years. Restricted use of this beach would be an infringement on the long-standing and implied rights of the public to have access to this beach."

I've signed my name to that.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris has changed the designation of estate wineries in Niagara from agricultural land to industrial land; and

"Whereas the primary use of winery property is not industrial but farm and commercial; and

"Whereas most of the properties involved are zoned agricultural and therefore have no access to normal services provided to industrial properties; and

"Whereas the grape and wine industry produces millions of dollars in economic activity and employs thousands of people throughout Ontario; and

"Whereas this added tax burden presents undue hardships to estate wineries and may result in job losses and a halt to the development in this important sector; and

"Whereas this change may have broader implications for all value added farming in the Niagara region and in southwestern Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, support the wineries of the Niagara region and southwestern Ontario and call upon Mike Harris and the Conservative government of Ontario to show their support for farm-based wineries on agricultural lands and the economic benefit it provides all of Ontario by removing the industrial assessment factor that the Mike Harris government has now burdened this industry with and reinstate an assessment which more fairly reflects the nature of value added farming."

I affix my signature as I'm in full agreement with the contents of this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing May 1, 1997, and ending October 31, 1997.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You may recall, Madam Speaker, that yesterday we sought and obtained unanimous consent to share our time with the member for London Centre and we'll do that. I note that we have approximately an hour and 10 minutes out of the one-and-a-half-hour allocation to our party, and I can assure you that we intend to use every second of that time.

We find it to say the least shocking, appalling, that the government would choose to wait until the very last hour to get the House to say, "Yes, you shall pay the bills of the province." But they need the money, and make no mistake, they need it quickly, because this is a government that is spending more money this fiscal year than the last one. This is a government that has underestimated the budget by more than $500 million, in fact by some $660 million, yet at the same time those ministries who don't speak as loud as some, those cabinet ministers who don't have much clout at cabinet, are being asked to carry the agenda of the government.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Name names.

Mr Pouliot: The Ministry of the Attorney General: actual spending, 1995-96, $1.085 billion. That ministry has been gutted almost by half. The current outlook for 1996-97, they're going from $1.1 billion to $654 million.

Mr Bradley: I thought they cared about crime.

Mr Pouliot: I guess the Tories are soft on crime. They talk a tough line, but when it comes time to protect society, the budget speaks for itself. The ministry is being gutted.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy, clean water, the air that we breathe, goes from -- I can't believe this -- $239 million in 1995-96 to $172 million. This is a government that wishes to -- well, they haven't said no to exporting another one of our resources: water. I guess they'll sell it to the highest bidder. They'll just call it "Perrio" and put the government stamp on it and out it goes. They might do this; they're gutting the ministry.

The Ministry of Education and Training: $8.39 billion goes to $7.608 billion, and they have the audacity, the gall to say that money hasn't been taken out of the classroom. You're an educated person, Madam Speaker. You have been in this House for some time. Surely by now you know who's telling the truth. Is it the government, which says, "We haven't cut anything out of the classroom," or is it over $1 billion missing? Where has the money gone?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It went to the northern heritage fund.

Mr Pouliot: It certainly did not.

Before time closed in on us yesterday, I was in the process of citing some campaign material that I have with me, and I want to share it with you, Madam Speaker. It's from Mr Al Leach, who is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He's the minister responsible for downloading, for passing the buck on the services to municipalities, for shortchanging the representatives, the reeves, the mayors, the councils, the citizens at the most relevant level of politics. From morning till night Mr Leach and his cohorts will make the municipalities pay big time.

This is what Mr Leach said on June 2, 1995. Recall that the election was held six days after, June 8, 1995, so this is the week before. It was addressed to homeowners in Cabbagetown, Moore Park and Rosedale. "Unlike Tim Murphy" -- and he was pointing at the Liberal candidate -- "I own a home and live in the riding of St George-St David. My party and I will never" -- underline "never" -- "support the imposition of MVA in Metro Toronto." That's market value assessment.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Who said that?

Mr Pouliot: This was said by Mr Leach.

Ms Martel: No. Must have been just before an election.

Mr Pouliot: Oh, yes. Then he goes: "The Liberals milked Metro dry. When the Liberals were in power, they treated all taxpayers, but particularly Metro's, like cash cows. They increased taxes 33 times in five years." This is what Leach says about the Liberals.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Order, member for Lake Nipigon. I'd like to remind the member to refer to the members of the House by their ridings.

Mr Pouliot: I thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to refer to the members by riding. You will kindly accept my apologies, because I was reading and it doesn't say the riding, it says "Al Leach." I'm reading what the letter says. I'm not about to change the written word here. I wouldn't do that. My word is my bond; I would not do that.

"When Lyn McLeod was in cabinet, the Liberals implemented the commercial concentration tax, a $1-per-square-foot tax on commercial property in the greater Toronto area. By the time this tax was finally repealed in 1994, Metro had lost 200,000 jobs."

This is tainted, really. There are many factors. There's the recession etc, but to tie it directly and completely would be, how would you say, hypocritical or dishonest? Would it not be dishonest and hypocritical when you know better?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, to quote the Speaker earlier, "I wouldn't go down that road" if I were you. You're getting very close to unparliamentary language here and I advise you to withdraw those comments.

Mr Pouliot: Thank you, Madam. Of course I will. I have made it a habit in the past 12 years to adhere to the protocol, to the good manners in this chamber and I will certainly try not to depart, even when faced with provocation, nothing short of that.

But there is one thing I dislike, Madam: It is someone who will do anything to get elected, to get the vote. With the new soliciting laws in Ottawa, I would be careful if I had my name on this. I would risk being arrested.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: You're talking about the Agenda for People.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Ms Martel: What did Isabel Bassett say?

Mr Pouliot: Well, it says, "A Mike Harris government will review all alternatives to market value assessment, including unit value assessment, to determine whether an alternative method would offer a more equitable and efficient means of assessing. The policy of the Progressive Conservative party," the people there, "has always been that we will never impose market assessment on Toronto. We remain firm in that position."

Ms Martel: What did she call Bill 106?

Mr Pouliot: We have Bill 106 -- I wish to thank my colleague from Sudbury East --

An Act respecting the financing of local government. They said they would never impose market value assessment. Now they call it actual value assessment. Two weeks from now they will call it current value assessment. Everything I buy is market value. It's what the market will bear, the law of supply and demand. The consumers, the producers, the merchants -- that's our daily lives. This is our system, with its competition, the marketplace, the essence of the system.

If you ask someone, "`Market value assessment': Does it mean the value of the market?" people will say yes.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): It's the current value.

Mr Pouliot: It's the current value; there is no difference. In fact, if we were to send "current value," "actual value" and "market value" assessment to a lab, under the closest of DNA and forensic studies no one could decipher the difference.

But here's the trick. You said, "We shall never do this," so you change one or two small things. Not the intent and spirit; it's the same. Now you can call it -- this is the new product, but it's the same stuff. The difference between truth and untruth is not a nuance. Those people knew, the minister knew; they were just waiting for that ballot box to go upside down -- look at the dividends, look at those votes -- and then they were to come and, bang. That's what they're doing now.

Some 3.8 million units are in the process of being assessed and reassessed. It's never been done in North America. This is the largest assessment exercise ever undertaken in North America. They need a small army to do it. The government is spending $62 million to do that, to assess, and they're training people. Many of them are one-day trainees, like instant coffee: "Here's your little book, here's your certificate. Down the street you go. You are now an assessor."

Then this invasion of well-intended people at 12 bucks an hour -- because it's gone to the private sector. The vulture, I mean the company, takes $18; the assessor, a high school student, pockets $12 per unit.

Knock, knock, knock. Ding dong. Your house: "Get the heck out of here. I don't want to see you."

"I'm an assessor. I'm a provincial assessor."

You must let them in. Many people will mistake them for bad news, so some of them will go to the local establishment and assess from the phone book. Get a phone book with them and the assessment will do.

Experts in the field -- independent sources -- are saying: "Three point eight million? You will have upwards of 900,000 appeals" -- chaos, a real zoo -- "and you will also have some discrepancies." You will have a horror show.

I want to walk you through a process which is about to take place, because Bill 106 doesn't work in isolation. It is a web, it is a mesh, it is a connection directly related to the advance of the Common Sense Revolution. Many things will happen starting January 1 when over 800 municipalities will be asked to partake in a tradeoff. But make no mistake: This is not revenue-neutral. The taxpayers at the municipal level, as you well know, are comprised of three different sectors. You have people who own a home or rent an apartment and through their rent -- people who are homeowners pay directly.

You have the commercial, mostly made up of small business, and then you have small and large industrial. At the present time all of those, all three sectors, pay an education tax.

At the residential level starting next January the education tax will be removed -- it will remain at the industrial level; it will also remain at the commercial level -- and in lieu of paying residential taxes, let me offer you the menu; not all of it, the list is too painful.

Land ambulance: Drive carefully. If you live in Manitouwadge and you have to go to Thunder Bay -- a small municipality. We don't have the amenities, the services, of larger centres and we understand that. Nevertheless, it's 400 kilometres one way. The municipality will now have to pay.

Policing, protection, service, those women and men in blue: Municipalities will have to pay. Library, sewer and water: Very expensive. Social assistance: If you know someone who's less fortunate and they happen to need prescribed drugs, the municipality will now be asked to pay 50% of that. People will have to become familiar with the formulary, an additional cost, and I can assure you the contingency fund will not take all of that. This is not revenue-neutral.

Seniors homes, long-term care: Some believe that demographics are two thirds of everything. While the cost of education is fairly easily determined, that of seniors is not. We have this bulge, we have people graduating en masse. In fact, each and every month in Ontario you have upwards of 7,000 people who go from being 64 to 65; 95% of those people, those Ontarians, latch on, go on to the drug plan. So those programs are open-ended. As you get older, you're more likely to see the doctor more often. You're more likely to -- well, we all find ourselves on a waiting list, simply put. But now that cost will be passed along to the municipalities.

They will have to find the resources at the municipal, residential, commercial and industrial levels for the cost of assessment, some costs related to transportation, maintenance and building of highways. If this is not downloading, I don't know what is and yet they said, "Stopping the downloading of mandates on municipalities."

The spin doctors, some of the whiz kids you see in the corridors here, some of the merchants of fear, the merchants of gloom and doom, who have to go outside and put the policies of the government to the public, paint a different picture. It was the Premier of the province not too long ago who, when referring to downloading, said that residential taxpayers should expect a 10% decrease on their houses by the year 2000. He's the person who said that if you're at the commercial level, expect a decrease as well, and if you're at the industrial level, your taxes will go down.

They're telling the municipalities, "You can do it by being efficient, by cutting surplus services, by being leaner," and yet this government is spending $662 million more than the previous year. They can't do it themselves, but you tighten up your belt. They're blaming Ottawa. They're saying, "The feds, the Liberals in Ottawa, are cutting our transfer payments by close to $3 billion, so now what we'll do is we will cut transfer payments and dump all kinds of services on the shoulders of municipalities."

They will repeal what they refer to as the BOT, the business occupancy tax. People are saying that this is perhaps not a bad idea. You know who will benefit? The bank towers are first in line. They will be the winners, the benefactors. The large apartment owners will come second. The large hotels come third. The commercial and the residential sectors will have to pick up the slack.

By way of example, I'll share a true story with you. Oakville is a rich community, no denying it. It has done very well. It's blessed with assembly lines second to none. The business occupancy tax will give the two largest employers an $18-million break per year. That's $18 million. Who is going to pick up the slack? The council will be forced to come up with new classes of taxes to recoup the money or they will pass it along to the consumer, to the commercial and residential sectors.

Some of the farming community get a farm rebate. In some cases it's 60%, 65%, 75% of their revenue. The minister says: "Don't worry, be happy. Trust us. You can cut down on services." They have one clerk, administrator, treasurer, whatever, and they have two grader operators. What they gain on the farm, they'll lose on the house.

The whole province is impacted here. Southeastern Ontario, many farms, southwestern Ontario: They feed the province, they feed us. Toronto milks it and I don't have to tell you what they do up north; what they do in the north I'll leave to you. But this is a recipe for disaster. It need not happen.

They're saying to people: "There will be a phase-in period. You'll have up to eight years." In the real world nothing could be further from the truth. On January 1, 1998, the municipal world is about to change. The new councils elected two months prior, next November, will be at a meeting and they will address the first item on the agenda, which is the interim tax levy. They will look at the roll and they will fully impose what the law says they can: 50% of the previous year's taxes.

The assessment will come in April; the new services will start in January. The provincial fiscal year starts in April; theirs starts in January, and they will have all those services, all the dislocation, to deal with. Where are they to get the money? Where will the money come from? It will come in the form of one, final, massive levy. We know some communities where the rate of taxes will double; some others will go up by 40%. There hasn't been one reeve, one mayor, one council member, one council person who has said, "My taxes will go down or remain the same."

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Halton North, I think, Halton region.

Mr Pouliot: Oh, there's been one? Halton North. God bless you, there is one out of 800 municipalities. Thank you very kindly.

The taxes are going to go up. The government doesn't even know how much it will cost. They don't have a clue as to the final bill. But they want those services out the door, dumped on the municipalities and then they will keep writing the standards, the programs. "Do as we wish, do as you're told," but the cheque is not in the mail.

We're not opposed to change. We have noticed and lived with changes, most of them welcome, through the ages. We're not opposed; in fact, we encourage changes. But let's not overestimate the ability of a society to digest, to assimilate. It's coming so fast, all at once.

I don't have the assurance that this government knows what it's doing. It's on the hook to deliver $5.4 billion in tax cuts to those who need it the least. We went through this scenario yesterday. Suffice it to say that if you take anyone of the middle class and look at their pay stub, their net pay, they will be hard-pressed to find any difference. But if you're rich, if you have that position of influence in life because you have many dollars, then you benefit.

If you were to mention that maybe a sales tax cut would have been more effective, that maybe when you go to the marketplace rather than pay 8% you should pay 5%, that there's 3% back in your pocket out of every dollar you spend, that would make a lot more sense. The rich would not benefit as much. That's the difference here.

Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan thought it was fair. He reduced the sales tax by 200 basis points, 2%, and people are saying: "Thank you, Premier. Good times, good luck to you. You've done well," and the marketplace gets treated fairly, or certainly equally.

Madam Speaker, it was one of those sessions where you had to be there to really appreciate the attitude of some of the government members. Right here in room 151, one of our committee rooms, one citizen made a presentation. She was representing herself, a most respectable person of venerable age. She talked about the impact of reassessment, with no cushion, happening all at once: Madame Katherine Packer.

When she mentioned that it would negatively impact her ability to pay -- she's not rich, Madame Packer -- one member of the government said, "If you can't afford it, sell it." Directly. I was devastated. Only the rules of the assembly prevented me from -- well, if not assaulting, from saying a thing that I would live to regret. But that wasn't it. Another member of the Conservatives said, "Get a reverse mortgage," to Madame Packer, right there: "Get a reverse mortgage," because her taxes were to more than double. What an attitude. "You just finished your mortgage. Get back into a mortgage. Get into debt."

What they didn't say was that a reverse mortgage costs anywhere between 1.5% and 2% more than a conventional mortgage. Of course they didn't say this. But the arrogance, imagine. A direct confrontation with one of our senior citizens, a proud homeowner, widow: "Get a reverse mortgage. If you can't afford to live there, sell it." I'm still reeling over those comments, but some of my colleagues are saying not to be too surprised, that from time to time it will bring out the worst in them and it will serve; it's never too far from service.

There isn't one organization -- Mr Pagnuelo, certainly not a New Democrat, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said: "Put the brakes on. This is not workable." The Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which represents 95% of municipalities in the province, do you know what they're saying? That municipalities cannot accept what you're trying to sell. In fact, Terry Mundell, the president of that great organization, is presently undergoing a massage of unprecedented penetration. They'll stop at nothing.

They're into, I'm sure, whatever it takes: imported, scented, heated oil, whatever it takes to get to Mr Mundell. So far, soldier Mundell has stood up and said, "No, I cannot buy what you're trying to download on the municipalities." He's still standing proud, but for how long? They either want him to sell out or they want him to buy in. Either way, that'll do.

What we're saying is that we welcome changes, but give it a break. You're scaring people. You're antagonizing people en masse. If there are five organizations that you haven't antagonized, you'll go home tonight, Mike, and you'll look at the phone book and make sure that you sock it to them the next day. Stability is what people wish. People want the ability to stand on their own two feet. They want to be like the others. They're more than willing to pay their share, but their share must not be to the benefit of those who are not; namely, the people who have a lot. I want to wish them well.

I don't begrudge anybody who has some money, because many of us don't have much. There is an almost endless list of applicants, of people who are saying to the government, "Slow down."

I will share the remaining time with my distinguished colleague.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Boyd: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this motion, because I think it is very important for us to be very clear why our party believes it is essential that we talk about the government's methods when we're talking about this supply bill. We understand, as does everyone else in this room, the importance to the government of passing the supply motion prior to April 30.

We understand that when we vote supply, we give the government the permission to spend dollars according to its budget and that in fact that right has with it some responsibility on the part of the government to be very transparent with the population as to how those dollars are flowing and what the implication of its budget decisions may be.

It is extremely important with this government that we take every possible opportunity to try and make more transparent to the public what is happening, because I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that this government is making every effort to make it difficult for even the most diligent of citizens to follow the flow of money within this government.

We have a saying that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I think that is exactly what this government is going to find out. The way in which it is rapidly changing things around, moving money from one pot to another, moving the tax base from one pot to another, adding obligations to the regressive property tax in one area and to income tax in another area, eventually they are going to be exposed and they are going to be exposed as carrying on a shell game which is very dangerous for the people of Ontario.

That's why, although the whip of the government and the House leader of the government are annoyed --

The Acting Speaker: Could I ask the members on the government side, if you need to meet, to meet outside to try to keep the noise level down a bit. Thank you. Member for London Centre, go ahead.

Mrs Boyd: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not sure why there's so much hilarity around the efforts of this government to try and hide from the general public the spending habits that it has developed. That is exactly why we need to talk about what is happening in connection with interim supply, because once the money is paid out, it's very hard sometimes to get people to pay attention.

The whip of the government party and the House leader of the government party have been expressing extreme irritation that we're still talking about interim supply today. They want to go on to their agenda of rapid change. They want to go on downloading responsibilities on to the regressive tax base. They want to go on with their very draconian measures. Because they don't really believe in the democratic process, they are doing everything they can to try and make sure the opposition parties do not have an opportunity to expose the way in which they are trying to hide what is really happening with their spending.

It isn't going to work, because it's our obligation to our constituents, it's our obligation as elected legislators, to expose that very problem that we all face.

We see a government that has engaged in very rapid change and is trying very hard to convince the people of Ontario that in the long run it's going to cost them less. My colleague from Lake Nipigon talked about the efforts of this government to try and hide the cost of the changes that are happening through the proposed municipal download, and he pointed out quite clearly that the plans of the government are opposed by virtually everyone who understands that that kind of shifting around of resources is eventually going to have very negative impacts on our ability to provide services within this province.

But that doesn't really trouble this government, because this government has an ideological position around the provision of services. This government ideologically believes that what is offered as a public service is not appropriate, that what we do through our taxes ought to be minimal and that those who are fortunate enough to have enough dollars to pay for services should pay for those services and those who do not are not worth thinking about in the first place. That's being a little crude, but the reality is that's what it comes down to.

The examples my colleague pointed out, the kinds of comments to an elderly, fixed-income taxpayer that she should sell her house if she couldn't afford her taxes or that she should get a reverse mortgage, are exactly typical of the cavalier attitude the members of this government have to people who are not as fortunate as they are.

It is very simple, when you see the kind of right-wing attitudes this government has, to understand the policies they are bringing forward. Do they care if those who live in a community that is not theirs are going to lose services as a result of decisions they make here? Not likely. Do they even care if those services are going to get lost in their own communities? In many cases they won't, because they believe those services should not have been offered through government in the first place.

All their ideological rhetoric tells us they have a very low opinion of publicly offered services and those who deliver those services. Again and again, their suggestion is that those services ought not to be paid for out of the public purse, that people who can afford them can purchase them themselves and the rest will just have to suffer, because who are the rest? The rest, according to their social Darwinism, are people who don't deserve to have those services because they either haven't worked hard enough or they're not smart enough or they haven't really joined the game.

The reality is that this is a reversal of public policy in this province from its beginning. This province, from its beginning, has had a public policy that has concentrated on ensuring that we are looking after those who are most vulnerable even while we are improving the lot of everyone, and this is a government that doesn't believe that.

So when we talk about how they spend money, when we are talking about a motion that gives them permission to spend money, it is appropriate for us to be questioning the very ground rules they use when they are spending that money and it's appropriate for us to be identifying the fact that this government, through each of its ministers, has done everything it can to try and hide from the public the changes occurring in public spending.

Many of their claims, meant to reassure the public about whether their services are going to be available to everyone, whether their services are going to be affordable for everyone, are in fact statements that try to confuse that public and try to hide what is actually happening.

Because I'm health critic, one of the areas I'm most familiar with is the whole area of health spending. In the Common Sense Revolution, the Conservative Party promised that they would not take one cent out of health care. We found out, barely weeks into their new government, that what they meant -- I recall for people that both the finance minister and the Premier stated this in this place -- was that by the end of the five-year period, spending in health care would be the same as it was the day the government took power.

Of course people attacked them from all over, because they said, "That's not what we understood you to mean," so then it became that they would each year put the same amount of dollars in. In fact there was great fanfare, great hooha, that they would in fact increase those dollars. Then, when they began to cut services, we heard them say: "Well, you've got to read the Common Sense Revolution a little bit more closely.

We only promised to maintain those services that are covered by the Canada Health Act, so it's fine for us to charge the elderly and the disabled and those who are forced to live on social assistance a fee for their drugs, because drugs don't come under the Canada Health Act. Therefore, we haven't broken any promises."

Then we start to hear about the millions and millions of dollars that are going to come out of hospital funding. We see up to this point at least $800 million come out of hospital funding, and we see this government put extraordinary powers in its Minister of Health's hands to close hospitals, to create a commission that supposedly is at arm's length, until members like the member for Lambton complain about what it means to have his hospital closed.

We see exactly what this means, because under Bill 26, the hospital restructuring commission can order the closure of hospitals, can order the transfer of assets to other hospitals, can use absolutely draconian methods to change the structure of hospital care in this province.

When the Premier is reminded of what he said in Fergus during the election, that he had no plan to close hospitals, what are people to think? What are people to think? The Premier has no plan to close hospitals, but the health minister is responsible to him and the government is responsible to him, the government that passed Bill 26 and gave the power to the hospital restructuring commission to close hospitals, and the Premier says he has no plan? You must think that the people of Ontario are very foolish to believe that, and you will find that they do not. The responsibility is the government's responsibility, however they try to pass it off to others.

The Minister of Health stands in his place every day and says, "We are reinvesting everything we've taken out of hospitals into health care." Well, I have the list of what he says he's putting back into health care; we have all the press releases. We've looked at all of this, and the reality is that very little of this is new investment into health care. The vast majority of what has been announced was already announced in the 1996 and 1997 budgets. They were there in those budgets as they roll out over the years. In fact, the Minister of Health was touting himself, saying he had reinvested $862,000,112 into health care and that it was almost a wash with what had come out of hospitals.

The first problem is that the minister forgets he's confusing operating funds with capital funds. The reality is that the $17.7 billion in hospitals is operating funds. Capital is separate. Those are operating funds. The minister so far has announced $239.35 million in capital spending. He has announced the capital spending for the Thunder Bay restructuring, for example, at $59.4 million; the Windsor restructuring at $48.2 million; the Windsor cancer care centre at $18.9 million. He has talked about the expenditures he is making in terms of MRIs.

That's capital expenditure on equipment, very clear, big investments. He has talked about $15.05 million in long-term care capital dollars in the rest of the province and $29.1 million in Metro. He has talked about hospital capital of 67.7% for Guelph.

He's made these announcements and people think: "Well, $800 million has come out of hospitals and now he's put back $239.35 million. Surely that means he's reinvesting." He is reinvesting, but it has nothing to do with that $17.7 billion, because that $17.7 billion was the operating cost of these hospitals.

When we look at what is already in the current budget, $340.4 million of the so-called $862 million that the minister has "reinvested" is already in the budget. Much of it was in the budget last year and has been announced at least twice and in some cases three and four times. This government insists on getting a public relations hit again and again for the same dollars, and we can show that again and again.

The whole issue of dribbling out the hospital growth dollars, mostly to the 905 area, certainly mostly in areas that are particularly of interest to Conservative members, was already announced in the 1996 budget, but we saw almost a year pass before any of that money was allocated.

If we look at the dollars in terms of some of the programs in cardiac surgery, for example, those dollars were already announced. Those dollars were announced and not spent previously. They are only just being allocated. This is typical of this government. This government said "great" and "wonderful" and congratulated itself again and again about child care. "We are putting 40 million extra dollars into child care." What did the Minister of Community and Social Services finally admit in February? "No, we haven't spent any of those dollars. No, we haven't allocated any of those dollars. It wasn't possible."

Mr Bradley: But have they announced them?

Mrs Boyd: They've announced them again and again, to the member for St Catharines. They have gon