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

April 22, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L061 - Mon 22 Apr 1996 / Lun 22 Avr 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ORGAN DONORS

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

EARTH DAY

DAIRY INDUSTRY

EARTH DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ORGAN DONORS

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

TORNADOES

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

TORNADOES

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

TORNADOES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S RIDING ASSOCIATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

EDUCATION FINANCING

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

JOB SECURITY

EDUCATION FINANCING

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

EDUCATION FINANCING

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

GREATER TORONTO AREA

EDUCATION FINANCING

PETITIONS

BUS TRANSPORTATION

RENT REGULATION

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

RENT REGULATION

CHILD CARE

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

TRANSITION HOUSE

RENT REGULATION

TAX REDUCTION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

RENT REGULATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT, 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ORGAN DONORS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): April 21 to 27 is Organ Donor Awareness Week. Every year, more than 600 organ transplants are performed in Ontario. However, there are 1,200 patients on Ontario's waiting list. To put this in perspective, 100 out of every million people in this province need an organ transplant, yet only 20 out of every million are likely to become potential organ donors.

MORE, the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program of Ontario, needs your help and the help of all Ontarians. All MPPs should have received an information package from MORE. They would appreciate your sharing this information with your constituents. Everyone can be a potential donor, regardless of age. It is the health of the organ, not the age of the donor that is important.

The new organ donor card will now be included with the Ontario health card. The new Ontario driver's licences do not have room for the donor card. MORE has developed a new donor card which should be placed in your wallet or wherever you keep all your identification.

In Ontario, we are fortunate to have an organization such as MORE. Thanks to the efforts of MORE, Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to use DNA testing to match kidneys.

Organ donations save lives. MORE asks you to think about being a potential donor. Please discuss this with your family. MORE can be reached at Toronto at 416-921-1130 or at 1-800-263-2833.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I rise to bring to members' attention the display going on in room 163 of the Legislative Building today and tomorrow by the Association of Community Information Centres in Ontario, representing the over 50 community information centres from across the province.

These centres, using a provincial database, Online Ontario, provide information to citizens across the province on such important services as access to appropriate government offices, community services such as child care, language classes, recreational programs and seniors' services. I welcome in the audience today members of the association.

I particularly want to draw to the government's attention the fact that $1.1 million of funding to the community information centres has been cut, in the erroneous belief that other provincial funding is forthcoming. I want to point out to the minister, who I'm glad to see is here, that one of the things that makes this particular decision very difficult to understand is that services at the community information centres are provided at a much lower cost than other comparable services in both the government and the private sector; and secondly, that these community information centres rely very heavily on volunteers to provide these much-needed services.

I would encourage the minister, as she follows up on her initiative of last week in providing access to information for vulnerable adults, to consider seriously the community information centres as a vehicle to do that.

EARTH DAY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Today is a very significant day on the environmental advocacy calender. Today is Earth Day.

Back on April 9, my colleague Frank Klees, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, announced on behalf of Minister Hodgson and the Minister of Environment and Energy, Brenda Elliott, the start of environmental advocacy weeks. Advocacy weeks are designed to promote public awareness of important environmental issues.

Today, on Earth Day, more than 100 countries are celebrating and marking this, the 25th anniversary of Earth Day. Earth Day's mission is to improve the state of the environment by encouraging individuals and communities to develop effective environmental partnerships and action plans.

On Earth Day and during Earth Week --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired. Would the member take his seat, please. That's the clock working.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission recently announced proposed changes to the distribution of milk in northern Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We'll let the member finish, and then we'll go back to you again.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Don't take that from the Speaker.

Mr Miclash: These changes would remove all considerations to producing and processing of the dairy industry in northern Ontario. It would allow southern Ontario producers to compete in northern communities.

Northern producers and processors tell me that these changes are being made with little or no public consultation. I am told that if the changes proceed as planned, we can expect plant closures and job losses in northern Ontario.

In my question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines two weeks ago, I asked what interventions he had made to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of the northern milk industry, along with what assurances he was willing to provide to northern residents that these changes will not result in higher price increases for milk and milk products.

We still have no commitment from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines or from his government that the northern dairy industry and northern municipalities will not lose their plants and somewhere between 250 and 300 jobs in northern communities.

Northern residents do not feel that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines or his government understands their concerns. People tell me as I travel the north that this government, more than any other, is not listening.

Again, I call upon the minister responsible for northern Ontario at the cabinet table to commit to the northern dairy industry and northern consumers that full public hearings will be held before any changes are made to northern milk distribution systems.

EARTH DAY

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Northumberland would like to complete his statement.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Do I get the full minute and a half?

The Speaker: Yes.

Mr Galt: Today is a significant day on the environmental advocacy calendar. Today is Earth Day.

Back on April 9, my colleague Frank Klees, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, announced on behalf of Minister Hodgson and the Minister of Environment and Energy, Brenda Elliott, the start of environmental advocacy weeks. Advocacy weeks are designed to promote public awareness of important environmental issues.

Today, Earth Day, more than 100 countries are celebrating and marking this, the 25th anniversary of Earth Day. Earth Day's mission is to improve the state of the environment by encouraging individuals and communities to develop effective partnerships and action plans. On Earth Day and during Earth Week, which runs through Sunday, April 28, Ontarians and all Canadians are invited to reconfirm their well-documented personal commitment to the environment. People across the country and around the world are participating in community events such as tree planting, cleanups, concerts, workshops and parades.

On behalf of this government, which has a stated commitment to ensuring our tax dollars are wisely and effectively used to protect the environment, I invite all members of this House to take part. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all Canadians that it's only through individual actions that our children, our neighbours and our communities will be encouraged to continue to work towards making every day Earth Day.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Today is Earth Day. I can't think of a more appropriate time for a little review of the Harris government's record on protecting our environment. Here are some excerpts from my Earth Day report card on the Harris government, released on Friday. This is, sadly enough, only a partial list.

On water, the Tories get an F for killing plans to prevent and control toxic substances from entering our sewers.

On air quality, they get an F for lifting the ban on new municipal garbage incinerators certain to increase cancer-causing chemicals in our atmosphere.

On green industry and recycling, they get an F for eliminating funding for the popular blue box program, a virtual symbol of our commitment to waste reduction.

On protection of lands and forests, they get -- you guessed -- another F for passing Bill 20, which will lead to urban sprawl and paving over agricultural land.

Now, the cynical will be saying: "There she goes again. Is there really nothing on which this government can be given a passing grade?" So I took a closer look and, lo and behold, I actually did find one area in which the government was not only passing, but actually excelling: On obfuscation and doublespeak they get an A.

"The ministry will be tough on polluters," crowed the government in a recent document that chopped the ministry staff by almost one third and gutted numerous green programs and regulations. No amount of sugar-coated language can hide the bitter taste of this government's shortsighted, ill-advised and hypocritical actions on the environment.

ORGAN DONORS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I rise today, along with the member for Oriole, to recognize Organ Donor Awareness Week. This very worthwhile activity is promoted by the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program of Ontario, MORE.

It has been estimated that if organ donors were increased by 10%, the health care budget would save $12 million over a decade.

Public awareness of the need for donated organs is critical. The success of transplants is apparent, as shown by the increase of organ donations in Ontario over the last year. However, the public needs to know more about organ transplants. A signed donor card has no effect on treatment in the hospital, and perceived religious or cultural restrictions may not apply, as the objective of health care is to save lives.

Many families approached about donation of the organs of their loved ones refuse. Many are reluctant to say yes because they are fearful of the process. They are worried about how donations could affect their loved ones. I must stress that even if there is a signed donor card, the person's final wishes can still be overruled by family members.

A son of one of my staff members has been waiting since 1994 for a transplant, the gift of life, the donation of an organ.

With a transplant a recipient is able to live a full and happy, productive life contributing to their family and community. Families who agree to donate organs report they have received something very special in return. Furthermore, the altruistic act has helped many --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Today I would like to welcome Janet St Pierre from the Belle River Community Council, an information centre in my riding. Janet is in the gallery. Ms St Pierre is here with the Association of Community Information Centres in Ontario.

Funding for community information centres has been decimated by this government. These centres provide a valuable, cost-effective service to individuals and businesses in communities across the country who may require the system as well as the free advocacy and referral service for citizens. These services would have to be provided by other agencies at a much higher cost. An example of this is the Ministry of Health's hotline which costs $132 per contact hour to answer questions from citizens. In comparison, community information centres provide this service for a mere $23.73 per contact hour. This equals a great savings for the taxpayer and a more efficient service for the citizens.

The association has set up a fully functional information centre in the building here today and tomorrow to show their membership's expertise. I urge all members to stop by room 163 of the main building to get a demonstration of their capabilities and services and to get firsthand information from the providers of this valuable service.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Last week the Minister of Natural Resources admitted that over 2,000 people in MNR will be out of a job. He tried to tell this Legislature that the impacts on MNR and communities in northern Ontario would not be significant. The facts tell quite another story.

First, there is the issue of fighting forest fires. Not only is the MNR losing attack fire crews and bases in places like Atikokan and Ignace, it will also lose the important backup fire support that is needed. The fact is that virtually every northern Ontario employee of MNR is experienced in firefighting and firefighting support and they are the people who become the fire crews and the fire crew support when serious forest fires occur, but they won't be there any more. MNR won't have the same capacity to fight forest fires that it has had in the past.

Then we have the shutdown of provincial parks. In my part of the province, over 1.2 million people come from the United States and Manitoba each year for the tourism experience and many of them stay in our provincial parks. But this year two of the most popular provincial parks, Lake of the Woods Provincial Park and Caliper Lake Provincial Park will be shut down. Gone are permanent jobs, student summer jobs and an important part of the local economy.

Then we have the forests. This government will turn over control of eight million hectares of crown forest to the private sector --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

TORNADOES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My statement today deals with the devastating tornado that ripped through the ridings of Dufferin-Peel, Grey and Wellington counties.

As you know, this past weekend our community was once again torn apart by a tornado that touched down in Shelburne, Violet Hill, Grand Valley, the townships of Arthur, Peel and West Luther in Wellington county and Williamsford in Grey county.

The community of Violet Hill was most affected, with a rural subdivision experiencing the bulk of the damage. When I visited the area Sunday, I was amazed at how much damage had occurred. Garages were torn from homes, roofs and walls were torn apart and trees were scattered like matchsticks. It was a miracle that injuries weren't more severe than broken bones and bruises.

Most homeowners had no opportunity to escape the tornado's path. It was most gratifying for me to see how the community responded. When I visited Violet Hill, I was encouraged to see how quickly the community had come to the assistance of their neighbours in need.

By Sunday afternoon, much of the damage had been cleaned up by friends and neighbours. Sunday morning, the local Rotary Clubs and the Home Builders' Association were all organizing volunteers to assist with cleanup and clearing the area.

It is amazing to see neighbours and friends pull together to work so quickly to assist their neighbours in need. I would like to offer my condolences to the homeowners who will now spend the next six months rebuilding their homes and putting their lives back together. I would like to offer my thanks to the many individuals who assisted with the cleanup over the weekend. I was reminded once again this weekend how special our communities are when they respond to neighbours and friends in need.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Today we have Chris Hornby and his family with us. Chris Hornby is a former Easter Seal Timmy and is from Essex county. Welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Allan K.

McLean): Please join me, members, in welcoming the fourth group of pages to serve the 36th Parliament of Ontario: Shawn Bender, Guelph; Stacey Coleman, Chatham-Kent; Marlo DesJardins, Simcoe Centre; David Forestell, Wellington; Sheranda Fox, Northumberland; Lucas Gindin, Dovercourt; Sarah Griffiths, Oakville South; Bradley Hammond, St Catharines-Brock; Brendon Hawkeswood, Windsor-Sandwich; Heather Husch, Lake Nipigon; Brent Kenworthy, York-Mackenzie; Jessie Klassen, Sudbury East; Shannon Kohlmeier, London South; Catherine Kunz, Oriole; Jennifer Lim, Carleton; Laura MacNiven, London North; Hélène Mateev, Scarborough West; Vik Mohindra, Durham West; Dennis Nezic, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Bryan Oehm, Middlesex; Charlene Perry, Quinte; Melissa Savage, Cochrane North; Keith Seim, Mississauga West; Tyler-Blair Sheppard, Norfolk; David Simard, Downsview; Maxwell Wellington, Ottawa-Rideau.

Welcome to our pages.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): On Wednesday, April 17, 1996, the member for Dovercourt (Mr Silipo) rose on a point of order respecting the use of question period by ministers to make statements.

However, as Speaker Warner states in his ruling of October 9, 1991:

"That is not to say that the Speaker is in a position to make judgements on the contents of answers in order to determine whether or not they constitute announcements of public policy."

In conclusion, I wish to thank the member for Dovercourt (Mr Silipo) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and to repeat that question period is not the appropriate time for ministers to make statements that should be made during the proceeding reserved for that purpose.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would like to advise the Legislature on action being taken to complete repairs to a backup system at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The need was identified during routine operational maintenance.

As the honourable members know, employee and public safety are the first priorities of Ontario Hydro and this government.

In accordance with these principles, on Saturday, Ontario Hydro began shutting down the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station so that repairs could be made to a check valve on the emergency coolant injection system.

The federal regulator, the Atomic Energy Control Board, was informed of the situation. On-site AECB representatives have worked with station staff to ensure the shutdown meets board approval. They support the remedial action being undertaken.

The backup system was not at any time in jeopardy. There are in fact two check valves in the system that ensure appropriate backup. Only one is required to keep the system operational in the event of a loss of coolant. While one requires repair, the other is operating properly.

The faulty valve was discovered as part of a routine testing of the safety systems. The emergency coolant injection system serves all eight Pickering units. All units must therefore be shut down to make the repair.

Ontario Hydro informs me that there is no risk of the same flaw at other nuclear generating stations. The failure at Pickering was caused by valve components not present at Bruce and Darlington.

This shutdown is not related to the April 15 release of tritiated water.

We expect to see the repair completed and the station back in service within eight to 10 days. There will be no impact on power supply to customers in the province. Ontario Hydro will replace Pickering generation with supply from fossil operations and, if necessary, through electricity purchases.

The government continues to be committed to the five-year average rate freeze for Ontario taxpayers. The shutdown of Pickering does not put the rate freeze in jeopardy.

Again, I want to assure the Legislature that this is part of routine inspection and maintenance and that the system was at all times fully protected.

TORNADOES

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I would like to inform the House of the aftermath of the two tornadoes which touched down in southwestern Ontario on Saturday evening. Let me begin by expressing our concern and sympathy to all of those whose lives have been affected by the destruction. There were a number of injuries and there has been some serious damage to personal property in the area. But most important of all, thank goodness, there was no loss of life, and for that stroke of luck we are all very grateful. I am pleased to report that emergency personnel have assisted all residents who suffered injuries or damage to their property.

The first tornado touched down in Grey county about 6:25 pm on Saturday. Five minutes later, a second tornado touched down in various parts of Wellington and Dufferin counties. Some 54 homes and 26 farm buildings were damaged or destroyed. Debris was scattered over a very wide area.

Staff of my ministry contacted local civic, police and fire officials immediately following the tornadoes and we have continued to work with local officials to assist them in their response to tornado damage. On Sunday, staff of my ministry met in the township of Arthur with the reeves of Arthur, West Luther and Peel townships. Staff also met with my colleague the member for Wellington. Let me say that the local members for Dufferin-Peel, Wellington and Owen Sound have been in their communities showing their support and assisting victims of this terrible tragedy.

The Premier has asked the Solicitor General to visit these communities this afternoon. In the meantime, I would like to congratulate the Ontario Provincial Police, the local fire chiefs and local municipal officials. Their efforts have been truly outstanding. I cannot say enough about the work of the local community organizations that came forward to offer their assistance, food, shelter and comfort -- neighbour helping neighbour, friend helping friend. They represent the very best of our province.

PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to respond to the statement made in this House by the Minister of Environment and Energy. Your continued attempts to provide a placebo of reassurance in the face of repeated evidence that there is reason to be concerned is simply not adequate. It is particularly not adequate on this issue in these circumstances, when the problem has been created by a valve problem at the Pickering nuclear station.

You have said that this was part of a routine inspection. This was in fact an unscheduled shutdown in the plant in which there have been valve problems known for some years. If I am not mistaken, this is the plant in which there was a replacement valve program undertaken some years ago because of the very real concerns with the valves in the Pickering nuclear station.

Rather than offer us a reassurance when we have yet another valve problem at Pickering, you should be prepared to bring to this Legislature and make public a full report on the status of that replacement and repair program as it relates to the Pickering nuclear station. We need to know whether or not that program of replacement has been completed. We need to know, if it has been completed, why there are now problems with the valves at this particular station.

We need to know most particularly -- and this is why I am very concerned about this issue today -- whether cutbacks in Ontario Hydro have indeed jeopardized both the replacement program and the ongoing maintenance at our nuclear plants and therefore have jeopardized the public's safety.

We need that full report and we need it because, if my memory again is not mistaken, I believe there were questions asked of you earlier about a peer review of the safety of nuclear facilities in the province of Ontario and you were less than forthcoming about that review. If you want to reassure people in this province that our nuclear stations are safe, you must be prepared to provide not just placebo reassurances but a full report on the replacement program and the ongoing maintenance of those facilities, particularly the Pickering facility.

I have a concern that I raise because I noticed that, somewhat strangely in my mind, you put in your release, a release which was intended to reassure the public about safety given this occurrence, that you're still committed to the five-year average rate freeze at Ontario Hydro. You were asked about your rate freeze last week as Ontario Hydro seeks a rate increase. You know full well you cannot control the hydro rates, but you can indeed as a government put a great deal on pressure on Ontario Hydro.

I want to know whether or not that pressure, that political intervention in the rate-setting program of Ontario Hydro, has jeopardized the maintenance and therefore the safety programs of Ontario Hydro and the safety of Ontario citizens.

Beyond that, the reason why you must be more forthcoming, you must be more open with the people of this province about the safety responsibilities you're prepared to accept as Minister of Energy in this province, is because of your government's direction on the privatization of Ontario Hydro. The fact that we have had several incidents now in which you have to reassure the House about safety makes me raise the question of what kind of reassurance any government can provide the public if it privatizes and sells off our nuclear generation facilities in this province.

You have to realize that this is not just a question, as you look to privatize, about who's going to pay the insurance liability for nuclear plants, which is considerable; this is a question about who is going to ensure that there is not, and never will be, a risk to the public safety. Elected members of the government, and only elected members of the government, can and must be held accountable for the safety of Ontario citizens. It is a matter of public safety and not just the financial bottom line you should be concerned about today.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Just this past Thursday, I questioned the Minister of Labour about closing the radiological lab, and this just confirms the need for maintaining that facility as part of the government of Ontario. That decision in and of itself was not a good decision.

As far as the peer review goes, the Minister of Environment will have a copy of that peer review. We already think we know what's in it. This issue won't go away. You can't cut protection, you can't do the kinds of things you're doing and just think issues of this nature will go away. It's too important for the people of Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Obviously there is a problem with nuclear safety in this province and, in particular, with this plant. There have been several occasions over the past years where there have been problems with various components of the plant. It's no good for the minister to stand up and say, "Don't worry, everybody, everything is fine." Just last week, 1,000 kilograms of tritiated water leaked into Lake Ontario. Today, just a short few days later, we hear about a safety problem with the reactors at Pickering once again. Residents around Pickering are concerned, and they have a right to be concerned.

I'm pleased that the problem that resulted in the shutdown has been found before it's too late. However, I am told that this flaw will cost taxpayers $1.2 million a day to purchase other power. The minister did not come clean about that today.

I have some real concerns relating to Hydro's reporting of events, and I raised it last week in the House. It took over 12 hours for Hydro to report the tritium spill to the water intake plant. Twelve hours is unacceptable. The minister's response to my question was unacceptable. There was a breakdown in procedure; that is very clear.

Despite what the minister said in the House last week, the Emergency Measures Organization was not the first organization called. In fact, EMO, according to my information, was one of the last organizations which was notified about the spill. I'd like to know what is going on here.

In view of the fact that Hydro's initial modelling indicated that the spill could have been significant, it originally thought from the first readings, the first modellings, that the spill might be of 30,000 becquerels a litre, which would have been terribly significant, and it took 12 hours to report it.

Minister, you do have a responsibility for Ontario Hydro and you also have a responsibility for environmental protection. There was a breakdown, and you need to take action. If it's this hard to get information from a public utility, I can only imagine -- in fact, I shudder to think -- how difficult it would be to get information from a privatized Ontario Hydro.

I would like this minister to stand on her feet, not hide behind the Donald MacDonald commission, and assure the people of Ontario that nuclear plants in particular, let alone the rest of Ontario Hydro, will not be sold off to the highest bidder. It is the minister's responsibility to tell the people of Ontario just what she plans to do.

TORNADOES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I stand here with the minister today and congratulate local authorities and ministry staff who responded to the tornadoes that hit central Ontario yesterday.

Just briefly to the minister regarding the statement, I think what we're looking for in those communities is a little bit more than sympathy. Given time, I'm sure the minister is going to take a look at what role the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing -- or possibly other ministries are able to assist those municipalities that have been affected. I know the people in those communities are looking for more than just sympathy, and I'm sure if the minister had had more time to have a statement, he would have touched on those issues of how directly and how concretely the government wants to respond to what happened yesterday in central Ontario.

I just want to remind the minister that one of the people from that community wonders and asks me how it is that we're able to respond, when in the government's business plan a week and a half ago the ministry cut or eliminated all of the special assistance funding to municipalities. They're looking to you for some leadership and saying: "Where's the beef? We appreciate the sympathy and we appreciate the phone call."

They certainly appreciate the meeting with your ministry officials and the role local members are playing in this, but they want to say to the government, "Listen, now that we've gone through this particular process, we've got to get down to the issue of how we are going to pay for some of that damage in those cases where insurance is not available to either the municipality or local ratepayers." What can the government do to assist those particular individuals and municipalities to deal with the damage that has been done in those communities?

I'm sure, as I said, that the minister in due time will respond to that, and I'm sure the minister will do all he can to financially assist those municipalities in responding to the tragedy yesterday.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S RIDING ASSOCIATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Last week, the Premier's personal integrity was called into question as Ontarians got a closehand look at some rather disturbing things.

First, we saw the Harris hypocrisy, the man who has been telling seniors and students and the poor of this province to make do with less while he has been accepting an annual gift of a free membership in a golf club. Secondly, we saw the Harris evasiveness: the Premier, and the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet as his spokesman last Thursday, refusing to acknowledge that this gift was subsidized by taxpayers' funds, which clearly it was. Thirdly, we saw the issue of the breach of the Members' Integrity Act, which is indeed a law of this province, and that's what I want to ask the Premier about today.

Last week, before the Premier went into hiding, he told this House that his rule for personal expenses was the following: "...be up front about it, be public about it, put the expenses there and be prepared to answer for them."

Premier, I place to you the same question that I placed in the House on Thursday: Can you today tell me why you did not disclose to the Integrity Commissioner that the Conservative donors were buying you a free golf and country club membership, and can you tell me why you did not disclose this, when clearly the integrity act required you to do so?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I obviously disagree with virtually 100% of the premise of the member's question, but let me get right to the answer. There is no conflict of interest in any of my dealings with the riding association. I have checked this with the riding association; I have also had discussions with the conflict commissioner, who concurs with me that there is no obligation under any information I have given him, the riding has given him, anything that you have given him or anything he's read in the paper that would cause any disclosure to be made to the conflict commissioner. That was my discussion with him.

Mrs McLeod: I would be very interested in knowing that the Premier has, since last Thursday, made a disclosure to the Integrity Commissioner. I would be very interested in a written ruling from the Integrity Commissioner as to what does constitute gifts and whether or not a gift that is subsidized by taxpayers' dollars from a riding association is in fact not considered a gift, because I think that is important.

Premier, we placed a question last Thursday because the act to us seems quite clear, and that was, "A member of the assembly shall not accept a fee, gift or personal benefit that is connected directly or indirectly with the performance of his or her duties in office."

Premier, you will recall that last Wednesday you told us that the purchase of the golf membership was directly related to your being the MPP for Nipissing. It is also a given that it cannot in any way be considered a legitimate business expense, which is why it clearly seemed to be a gift. The Integrity Commissioner has indeed ruled that this is not a gift, and I ask you to explain the basis for his ruling to the House today so we may all be aware.

Hon Mr Harris: The member is perfectly free to reference any of their own personal information or request any information from the Integrity Commissioner about anybody else. Nobody in this Legislature has done so, as of today, to the best of my knowledge, and I suspect that's because, as I've checked over the filings, I've seen no declaration of any gift from any member of the Legislature or any leader to deal with campaigns, to deal with clothing, to deal with cleaning, to deal with hairdos, to deal with anything that has been made by anybody there.

Quite frankly, I did not disclose anything to the conflict commissioner, as the member has indicated. I confirmed with the conflict commissioner everything that I had done, all the expenses that I had been legitimately reimbursed for by my riding association, carrying out my function as leader of the party, as the MPP. I disclosed that and discussed that with the conflict commissioner because you seem to have wanted to raise it up and cause questions in the media. In the absence of your referring it, I asked him and he said, "I see no difficulty."

Mrs McLeod: We raise it because it seems quite clear to us that anything which constitutes a gift and which is of a value over $200 must be disclosed and would be disclosed on any member submitting a statement to the Integrity Commissioner.

Given our understanding of that, Premier, may I ascertain today that you are not at all uncomfortable with us in fact seeking written clarification on this matter from the Integrity Commissioner and making that clarification public?

Hon Mr Harris: Frankly, it doesn't matter whether I'm uncomfortable or not. It's certainly your right to do so.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Our second question is to the Minister of Education. This concerns an event that is somewhat different but still rather extraordinary because it appears that a member of the Conservative government has been caught telling the truth, such an event that it made front-page news in Belleville this weekend.

Of course I'm referring to the story in the Intelligencer with the headline that says "Tories Lied, Says Rollins." The member for Quinte met last Friday with about 250 high school students, teachers and public school board administrators to discuss the harmful impact of this government's cutbacks on classroom education, and the member for Quinte told it like it is, like every one of us who was out in our ridings understands this.

He said, "There is no question about it, there is going to be an effect in the classroom." According to the report in the Belleville Intelligencer, a student then asked the member for Quinte if he meant this government lied when it said it wouldn't affect the classroom and the member for Quinte replied, "Yup, on that

part it did. Yes."

My question to the minister is, is the member for Quinte telling the truth?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The Leader of the Opposition should know and understand that it is not unusual for this government to tell the truth to the people of Ontario, and I can tell her this, that on the education ministry, we have kept the promises that we made in the Common Sense Revolution. We kept the promises that we made a year before the previous election.

We have restored junior kindergarten to a local option. The local board can decide what services can be delivered to the local community. We have kept our commitment in finding the savings in our education system that our taxpayers depend on. We have kept those commitments, not only other portfolios of this government but also in the Ministry of Education, and I'm proud of keeping those promises.

Mrs McLeod: The member for Quinte obviously knew what was happening in his riding and told the truth about it. The Minister of Education is either not aware of the reality of what is happening in Hastings and in every other board across this province or he is unwilling to state the facts publicly to the Legislature as they actually are.

One fact alone from your response, Minister: You haven't just made junior kindergarten optional; you have cut the funding and you are killing junior kindergarten. That's the reality of what you've done.

You have cut the funds to school boards to such an extent that they do have to cut into classroom education. Just for the record, in the particular boards the member for Quinte represents, the public board spends 88% of its education dollars on something your ministry calls instruction, and the separate board in that area spend 85% on what the ministry calls instruction. When you cut them, you are cutting classroom education.

That's not the only area, Minister. The truth-telling on the part of the government backbenchers appears to have been contagious over the weekend because the member from Grey has caught the bug. Here's what the member from Grey said on his local radio station last week during a discussion about the Conservative education cuts. The member from Grey said: "I do believe our Ministry of Education is a little out of control," and, "I think our minister really doesn't know what he's doing -- at times it seems that way." I'm still quoting the member, "I think he mentioned he wanted to create a crisis -- it looks like he's done that."

In a courageous example of truth-telling that should be emulated by all members of his government, the member from Grey said he thinks the minister is a "little out of whack right now." Minister, is the member from Grey also telling the truth?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for this question, this opportunity to respond in the House. Perhaps it seems to the Leader of the Opposition unreasonable, perhaps it seems unreasonable to the member, to ask our partners in the school system, the people, the boards, the federations --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Welland-Thorold.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- to find less than 2% savings -- less than 2% -- in a system where an independent commission found that 47% of our expenditures were outside the classroom, but I can tell you that for the people of Ontario, the people who have made the adjustments over the last decade in their families as their disposable income declined more than 2%, the people who have found this in their business lives and in their professional lives, it comes as no shock that those kinds of reductions can be made, and can be made without affecting classroom education. I'm surprised that question would come up.

Mrs McLeod: There is simply no fact in what the minister says. In the Bruce-Grey area, 88% of the education dollars are spent on what the ministry calls instruction. Minister, I think you should sit closer to the member from Quinte and the member from Grey, because you might catch the truth-telling bug that's going around.

The reality, as so eloquently put by the two government backbenchers, is that this minister has broken a key government commitment. The cuts imposed by this minister, with the full backing of this Premier, are hurting classroom education; they are hurting the children in our classrooms. Minister, will you not admit that your cuts are hurting children and will you admit this is just another example of a broken Conservative commitment?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I think the Leader of the Opposition will not be surprised when I take exception to the premise of the question. There is absolutely no reason why the quality of the education in this province cannot be enhanced -- and by that I mean student achievement in the classroom -- while we find savings in that system that are so important. There is no reason why that cannot be found.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. I want to give him an opportunity to continue explaining his crisis in education. I noted that in that last cheering section, neither the member for Owen Sound nor the member for Quinte was cheering.

I want to bring the minister back to reality, because the reality we're seeing across the province is that, unlike what the minister has been talking about here and throughout the province, that his cuts will not affect classroom education, we are seeing instance after instance of cuts directly to education.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House come to order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr Silipo: We are seeing instance after instance where the cuts are affecting very directly classroom education. Last week we saw in Oxford county at Norwich high school over 200 students walking out of class to support their teachers who got laid off; a similar action in the Niagara South Board of Education; similar actions in London. I could list on and on many examples.

The point I want to raise with the minister is this: Now it seems that even some of his backbench members and colleagues are tuning in to the fact that his cuts are hurting classroom education. If he can't even convince his own colleagues that his policies are not hurting classroom education, how does he expect to convince anyone else in the province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to reassure the member opposite that our caucus, this government, to a person is committed to doing a variety of things. We are solidly in alignment with these, and if you'll pay attention, I'll let you know what they are.

One, we are going to return some fiscal management to this province so that we can hand a province with some opportunity, possibility and vitality on to the next generation, something your government failed to do, sir.

Secondly, we are committed and we are in alignment for providing quality of education, and by that we mean an improvement in the results of our students here in the province, and we will achieve that, sir.

You may be a tad surprised at a government in which the caucus means something, at a government in which the cabinet listens to the caucus, in which people have something to contribute. Many of the people in this caucus have an extensive experience in our school system, and I can tell you that they are quite an asset to this government, to me personally. You may also not be familiar with the words of Will Rogers when he said, "When two people agree on everything, only one person's thinking." Maybe there's only one person thinking --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold has been continuously out of order and I won't warn him again.

Mr Silipo: Minister, you can continue to go on and on about your crisis in education, but the reality is that your cuts are hurting children in the classroom. Parents know that, students know that, teachers know that, and now even some of your government member colleagues know that.

The member for Grey-Owen Sound, as has already been quoted, said recently over the weekend, "I think our minister really doesn't know what he's doing -- at times it seems that way. I think he mentioned he wanted to create a crisis -- it looks like he's done that." Minister, what do you say to the member for Grey-Owen Sound in terms of his assessment of your performance and your actions?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I have spoken to the member this morning and I will continue to talk with the member about issues of concern in his riding and his area, issues of concern to the school boards he represents. I can tell you that we intend to have an ongoing conversation about that and about how education is affected in his local area.

However, this may come as a surprise to some of the members opposite, but we in this government believe that we can enhance student achievement in this province and find savings. That may come as a surprise to the members opposite, but that in fact is what this government is committed to doing.

Mr Silipo: I'm not going to debate the minister on that point, because his own members are doing a good job of it. Let me just say that I agree very much with the member for Quinte when he says, "The provincial government lied when it told Ontarians provincial funding cuts to education wouldn't show up in the classroom."

I ask the minister, who's right? If the member for Quinte believes that strongly what he said to the newspapers on the weekend, he's saying a lot about you and about your government and your actions. He's recognizing that the cuts are hurting classroom education. Why won't you finally recognize that and at the very least put a freeze on the cuts until you get a realistic assessment of the damage you're causing out there?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I can assure the member opposite that we can find savings in our education system without affecting classroom education. Which of the studies would you like me to quote? There are several, sir. Independent people who have reviewed this system found 47% of our expenditures are out of the classroom and suggested a reduction down to 40%, about $1 billion.

When you talk about student-teacher ratios, we're interested as a party in making sure we have our people in the education system utilized so they make the biggest effect on student achievement, and we think that's what needs to be done in education. Let me just say this very clearly: I believe and this government believes we can find savings in this system and enhance student achievement.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Nobody voted for $1 billion to be taken out of education in one year.

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Environment and Energy in relation to the statement she made earlier today regarding the shutdown at Pickering and in relation also to last week's tritium incident.

Since about 20% of Ontario's electrical generating capacity has been shut down due to the problem in the emergency coolant backup system and, particularly as it's Earth Day, Ontarians want to be assured that the system is safe, will the minister agree that Hydro, which had a peer review audit done on its nuclear facilities last fall and has refused to provide that to the public or to the media -- will the minister direct Ontario Hydro to release the peer review audit so the Ontario public will know the full picture concerning safety at Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would like to emphasize the fact that this faulty valve was discovered as a result of careful monitoring by Ontario Hydro in routine inspection, and I think Ontario Hydro should be congratulated for taking strong and immediate action to prevent anything from occurring at Pickering. Strong action at Pickering is important, and certainly important to the people who live in that vicinity and are concerned about their safety, as we all are.

The peer review documents are internal documents. They only work when they are internal documents. Their purpose is frank and open disclosure among peers in an effort to find best solutions for operational procedures. They only work when they are internal.

Mr Wildman: The public has a right to know the information about Ontario Hydro's safety, particularly the safety at the nuclear plants. The peer review audit is a performance and safety review of those plants, and the minister and Hydro are refusing to release it. The Globe and Mail made a request and it was turned down "because release of the reports could generate unjustified negative opinion that would affect the economic interests of Ontario Hydro."

What have you got to hide? Why won't you come clean? Why won't you at least, now that you've seen these incidents in the last couple of weeks, direct Ontario Hydro to release the peer review audit?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Neither the Atomic Energy Control Board nor the government have copies of these documents. They are intended to be effective as review documents shared among peers, the purpose being a full and open disclosure to find the best solutions. In fact the Atomic Energy Control Board, which is the regulator responsible for the safety of the nuclear facilities, does not want disclosure because it knows it would inhibit the efficacy of such a process.

Mr Wildman: In the November 28, 1995, edition of the Globe and Mail an official of the AECB said he doubts the information reviews would cause embarrassment to Ontario Hydro. The minister says that the government does not have the audit. My question was whether the minister would direct Ontario Hydro to release it, not whether the minister would release it.

Particularly at a time when the government is considering the privatization of Ontario Hydro, is the minister aware that in the Wall Street Journal on February 1 there was a report that utilities in the northeastern United States are cutting corners on safety as they attempt to reduce costs? Obviously, the people of Ontario have a right to know what's happening now in Ontario Hydro and what might be the result of any attempt to privatize that operation.

In light of these reports, are you prepared to release the peer review and assure Ontarians that responsibility for the operation and safety at Ontario Hydro remains in the public sector?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I remind my colleagues that the shutdown at Pickering is in response to a faulty valve in a backup safety system. Again, these peer reviews only work when the disclosure is full and open among peers and that is solely its intent. The AECB does not believe that these peer reviews would be effective if they are made public. My job is to make sure Ontario Hydro can do its best to provide safe nuclear power for this province, and I believe that in the present system they can do that best.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have another question for the Minister of Education. It relates very directly, Minister, to the cuts you have imposed on school boards across the province, cuts which are not the $400 million you like to talk about, but have an impact of at least $1 billion on public boards alone. Boards cannot implement those cuts without hurting classroom education.

You have said today that you do listen to members of your caucus, so that leads me to a question about exactly who has your ear. The Haliburton County Board of Education, we understand, is to be cut by $1 million, obviously a concern. We learned over the weekend that the size of that original cut has been reduced by about two thirds. One media report attributes this rather significant change to a little political magic by the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who of course also sits at the cabinet table with you as Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development.

Minister, was indeed the original cut proposed for the Haliburton board of education reduced? If so, did you have any discussions with the Minister of Natural Resources about this change in direction, and is this the type of deal that you work out on a regular basis?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the Leader of the Opposition, first of all, you're quite correct. Our reduction to the school boards was not, as announced, $400 million; in fact that would have been a very, we think, tough operating reduction to make, so we mitigated that $400 million with a temporary moratorium on capital spending, which will actually reduce the operational reductions that school boards need to make over the next year. We have done that, conscious of the fact that school boards need time to make the adjustments in order to pick up those savings.

As far as the other suggestion that the leader has made of some sort of -- I don't know -- deal, can I just assure the Speaker and assure the chamber that once again the Leader of the Opposition is simply misinformed.

Mrs McLeod: The minister has not mitigated the cuts to education as it relates the $1-billion impact, unless he has to the Haliburton board of education. I ask you to provide us with correct information if the media reports were misinformed.

I can't believe that you did not come into the Legislature today having asked for some accurate information so that misunderstanding could be corrected, so I ask you again: Did you mitigate the cuts specifically for the Haliburton Board of Education? If you did, what was the basis for reducing their cut in grants? If it is found to be a perfectly normal procedure in the Ministry of Education and Training, could you name any other school boards which have been able to cut a similar deal, or else tell us unequivocally today that no other school board has cut such a deal?

Hon Mr Snobelen: To help the Leader of the Opposition understand, let me say very simply that no such deal exists.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, third party.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Was the Minister of Natural Resources not telling the truth, then, in the report in the newspaper?

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training. As the minister is aware, the committee has been hearing presentations, and will continue to hear presentations this week, on Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, and has heard a number of proposals from boards, teachers and other interested groups about possible amendments.

Since we're continuing the hearings this week and it wouldn't make sense not to know what the government is proposing -- government members have indicated there may be government amendments -- is the minister prepared to indicate to the committee that the government will table the amendments the ministry intends to propose to Bill 31 at the beginning of the session this week so that everyone will know what the government's intentions are?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): In reply to the leader of the third party, no, we have no intention of tabling amendments at the start of this week. What we will do is get the public input that this process is designed to have, and at the conclusion of that we'll see if there's some way this bill can be improved or that the College of Teachers can be improved.

Mr Wildman: From that, am I to understand that at this point the minister has no amendments to the legislation in mind? If that is the case, does that mean that the government only intends to begin to prepare any amendments it might consider after Thursday's session this week? If that is not the case, why would the government not now table the amendments so we don't have presentations all week dealing with areas that the government has already determined to change?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'll say this as clearly as I can, so that there can be some great understanding about this. You have asked if I was going to table amendments today, at the start of the process this week, and I have said that no, I have no intention of doing that. We'll wait until the public input is in and then we will have a look at the full body of public opinion, the full body of presentations that have been brought before the committee, and we'll see if there is any way to improve the College of Teachers so that at the end of the Legislative process we have the best college possible.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last week, more than 250 people in my community attended a town hall meeting that I organized to deal with the very difficult and tough issue of drunk driving in our community.

Could the minister tell this House what he and his ministry are doing to combat what is very criminal behaviour, drunk driving in the province of Ontario?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to thank the member for Nepean for his question and also for his dedication to road safety.

This government is committed to ensuring the safety of our road users across the province, and we have done more than previous governments in the past. Tough measures to reduce the incidence of drunk driving were introduced as part of our road safety program in October 1995. They include $1.2 million of continued annual funding to RIDE programs run by municipal police services; a commitment to work with the private sector to create local and provincial year-round public awareness campaigns.

On top of that, legislation will be introduced to increase the potential maximum suspension period for a convicted first-time offender from 12 months to 18 months to allow the courts more room to make the punishment fit the crime. Legislation will also be introduced to provide for immediate 90-day administrative licence suspensions.

Mr Baird: At our town hall meeting, we heard from numerous people who were very concerned about this issue. Many of them had family members involved in very serious accidents. We heard that the time for education has passed. We've done enough of what we can do from education; people want tough enforcement and they want tougher action to combat drunk driving on our roads.

Members in my riding were pleased to learn of the doubling of the funding to 119 communities in the RIDE program. Even the police chief in our community spoke out in favour of that.

Members in my riding want tougher measures to combat drunk driving. One of the measures available is administrative licence suspension, something that you mentioned. My constituents welcomed this government announcement of ALS last fall as a positive step in the right direction.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): How did they welcome the cancellation of the ads?

Mr Baird: We had 250 people at the meeting; not one of them mentioned the ads.

When ALS was announced last fall, we were told it would be up and running within 12 months. Could the minister tell us whether or not we can meet that deadline, and if so, when can we expect to see this program operational on the roadways of Ontario?

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to assure the House and the people of Ontario that this government is working to meet its deadline for the introduction of ALS. This initiative has a proven track record in other jurisdictions of reducing alcohol-related crashes, deaths and injuries by up to 50%. We will be introducing legislation this spring, and implementation is planned for the fall.

Administrative licence suspension, when combined with the other measures contained in the road safety plan, will mean safer roads for the people of Nepean and the rest of Ontario. These and other changes we are considering will make us one of the toughest jurisdictions in North America on drunk driving.

JOB SECURITY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Minister, when your government was elected, and before that during the election campaign, it was suggested that once you were elected there would be several industries coming to Ontario and then everybody would want to stay in Ontario.

In St Catharines, since you've been elected I can think of seven or eight plants that have been affected by closures: Kelsey-Hayes, 135 people; Court Industries, 20 people; Thona Corp, 60 people; Foster Wheeler, 188; Beaver Lumber, 59; Mott's Cadbury and Schweppes operations, Cadbury Beverages, 175 last Thursday; and today I pick up the local newspaper and I find another 100 jobs are lost in St Catharines, this time at ITT Automotive.

Minister, what could you believe could be the reasons for all these companies leaving, and what are you prepared to do to retain these jobs in the province of Ontario, because they're so very important to the people in our community?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very pleased to respond to the member for St Catharines. We are very concerned when jobs move on or changes occur in industry. As you are quite aware, at the present time the Globe and Mail is running a very good series of articles on the job market and what is happening. There are changes in the job market, there always will be and there have been in the past.

We are not concerned, because we know that we are creating the right business climate. Let me give you a few examples of this. Hoechst chemicals in Kingston, near the old Celanese Canada Inc plant, has put $200 million into their plant for expansion purposes. Siemens, a well-known, worldwide respected company, is doubling its investment in the Windsor region by about $100 million to $200 million. All I can say is that those are very gratifying statistics and I think they ensure us in Ontario that we are creating the right business climate.

Applause.

Mr Bradley: I find it amazing that so many Conservative members are applauding when so many people in St Catharines have lost their jobs in the last period of time.

I want, however, to zero in on one specific closing to see if the minister can be of some assistance in this regard, and that is the Cadbury Beverages closing last Thursday. The Minister of Agriculture will be interested in this: 175 people will lose their jobs, and all of these people are extremely concerned, justifiably, when they lose their jobs. But as a result of the closing of that plant, grape growers in the Niagara region will not have a place to have their grapes processed for the purpose of grape juice.

The minister has had the weekend and he's had input from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Could he tell us what action the government is prepared to take to ensure that those growers have an opportunity to have their juice processed here in Ontario and therefore continue the economic viability of that form of agriculture in the Niagara Peninsula instead of paving it over from Toronto to Fort Erie?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm very pleased to report that as in all cases where we see changes in a community about jobs, we are working with the company. We are in contact with the companies at all times to find out how we may assist them. That's part of our job in our ministry and our government. Just as we were helpful to Toyota and Honda in helping them expand their plants, we will be working with this company and that region in Niagara to make sure the grape manufacturers --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. I've been very patient, but I warned the member for Welland-Thorold earlier. I'll have to name the honourable member. Would the Sergeant at Arms take him out, please.

Interjection: He hasn't done anything.

The Speaker: Yes, he did. I'm sick and tired of it.

Mr Kormos was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker: New question.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training in relation to the answer he gave to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the Haliburton County Board of Education. I have a copy of the Haliburton County Echo, Tuesday, April 16. It says:

"After a month of anguishing over how to absorb $1.2 million in lost revenue without decimating the school system, Haliburton board of education has been told by the province its funding cut will be only a quarter as deep.

"Haliburton-Victoria MPP Chris Hodgson delivered the startling news before a standing-room-only crowd of mainly parents, educators and students at a special school board meeting Tuesday evening in the high school gym. Hodgson told the gathering that Education Minister John Snobelen had considered the devastating effect a massive funding cut would have dealt the board and decided to cap the decrease at 15% of last year's $2.16-million transfer payment."

Could the minister indicate to this House whether or not he was accurate in his response a moment ago or whether the report that attributes this to the member for Victoria-Haliburton is accurate? Did the member get the minister to cut the cut in transfer payments to the Haliburton county board or not?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I can help a little bit with this. You should know that the reductions we have asked school boards to make, the savings we've asked them to make as a result of the Minister of Finance's announcements on November 29, amount to less than 2% of operating costs in boards.

My understanding of Haliburton is that it's a small board and that 2% or less than 2% -- I think 1.7% --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Did they cut a special deal in the back room?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- of operating costs wouldn't represent anything close to $1.2 million, so I don't know where that number comes from. I appreciate that the leader has read into the record in the House clippings from the County Echo. I didn't read the Echo but I found the story interesting.

I can tell you that as far as I know, the school board in Haliburton does not have a $1.2-million reduction coming from the ministry as a function of the savings that we announced on the 29th.

Mr Wildman: In this report, Mr Hodgson, the minister's colleague, states that he appealed to Mr Snobelen, who ruled that "A handful of boards" that would be hit far more severely than others under the province's funding formula, including Haliburton's, would see their transfer payment reductions capped. "It's felt that the 15% cut can be met through administrative reductions," said Mr Hodgson.

Did the minister, in response to an appeal from his colleague, cap the cut in transfer payments to Haliburton county, and is that part of "a handful of boards" that would be severely hit? If so, what are those boards, which ones are they, and why is it that these boards are apparently being treated differently than all of the other boards in the province? If you're going to cap them at 15%, cap them.

Hon Mr Snobelen: First, may I congratulate the leader of the third party on the theatrics. It makes the point very theatrical.

I can tell the leader of the third party that as a result of our asking school boards to find savings that are less than 2% of their operating costs, it would not represent anything close to $1.2 million in the Haliburton board.

As the member may have been informed previously, there will be a variety of boards, I suspect, across the province that will apply to the ministry for relief from an undue burden if a variety of the different things that change year to year in the GLGs require some adjustment. As has happened in the previous government and the previous government before them, from time to time a board will apply for an undue burden, and if it's appropriate the ministry will go forward with that.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Let's make a deal. Education: Let's make a deal.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood.

Hon Mr Snobelen: But I can tell you that as at this point, as I told the Leader of the Opposition, no deal has been struck. We will take those applications from boards, and I suspect that there will be several for undue burden, and we will examine them and we'll do something that makes sense for those boards, because we don't want to affect classroom education in the province.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, recently the Hamilton-Wentworth constituent assembly released its report on reform of municipal government in Hamilton-Wentworth. There doesn't seem to be any consensus as to what form that should take. I'm wondering if you can tell this House what position your ministry has with respect to the recommendations made by that constituent assembly.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank my colleague from Hamilton West for this very important question. This government is very interested in municipal restructuring. We believe municipal restructuring will lead to less government, less duplication, and be more cost-effective. All of this benefits local taxpayers, as those in Hamilton-Wentworth.

We believe the best solutions to local problems are initiated and developed at the local level. We are encouraging municipalities to restructure their political and bureaucratic operations so that taxpayers all over Ontario, and including Hamilton-Wentworth, get the best value for their money.

Mrs Ross: Can you please tell me, in light of the fact that there is no consensus, does our government have any plans with respect to reforming government at the regional level of Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon Mr Leach: The constituent assembly has spent considerable time examining the regional structure in Hamilton-Wentworth. We look forward to hearing what the community has to say about the recommendations of the constituent assembly. We feel that excellent solutions can be reached by communities coming together to resolve important issues that have a great impact on their lives. The province is here to offer any assistance to ensure that Hamilton-Wentworth provides services to its citizens in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to come back to my friend the Minister of Education and Training. We've heard three different responses this afternoon in relation to what has been reported widely, the apparent special deal that the Haliburton board has received; the county board. The minister has already acknowledged that, yes indeed, there has been some adjustment. The report suggests that the Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines, after having discussed with the minister -- that some adjustments were made.

I would ask the minister if he would simply answer, did you or did you not have discussions or have some representation from the Minister of Natural Resources concerning this particular board, following which cuts were made to the cut to this particular board?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. Yes, in fact I've talked to many members of our caucus about their individual boards and I certainly have managed to send an information package out to all those people who have made an inquiry about how their board will be affected in the GLGs this year. I understand that's a fairly normal process. No, as I said a little earlier, we have not made a deal, but we will certainly entertain -- and I'm sure that we will get this from several boards, as has been the case in the past -- representations from boards that believe they have an undue burden because of past GLG experiences.

As I'm sure the member opposite understands, the reductions, the savings that we're looking for boards to make do not represent the largest part of the GLG effects for many boards. So we will have a look with individual boards and make sure that everything's done fairly and equitably across the province.

Mr Patten: An alleged amount of $1.2 million down to $232,000-odd in that particular neighbourhood it seems to me is not inconsequential. That is a very significant drop in the cut that would affect this board, so I have a question, Minister: What are the criteria on which you would review submissions by boards, and would you be prepared to table a list of what the original cuts are now and any changes that have been made to the cuts that have been offered to the various school boards in the interim?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Again, I thank the honourable member for the question. So he'll know, the undue burden section, which has been used many times by many governments -- in fact is used almost every year -- is regulation 307 in the Education Act. So there is that information.

Secondly, for the information of the member -- and I have said this before today in this House; I'll say it again -- our reductions to school boards amount to less than 2% of operating expenditures, about 1.7% for the average board. That is not, in my view, and I think in the view of this government, an unreasonable amount to expect our system to find savings outside of the classroom.

In the area of Haliburton, in the Haliburton boards, 1.7% does not represent anywhere near $1.2 million. I don't know what the number would be, but it would not even be close to $1.2 million. So I don't know where that number comes from. It certainly isn't a result of the savings that we've asked school boards to take on. It may be a result of some other normal fluctuation in the general legislative grant, and we'll have a look at it.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. In the Toronto Star today it says: "Brenda Elliott is apparently under house arrest, forbidden by Premier Mike Harris' officials to speak to the public in anything other than tightly controlled situations." Minister, today is Earth Day, and I'm going to give you a chance to break free and give you an opportunity for once to speak up for the environment, all on your own today.

Pollution Probe recently said the largest single cause of smog is automobile exhaust. A future with more people, more cars, more kilometres driven means even worse smog problems in the future. At the end of this month the voluntary vehicle emissions testing program which was to form the basis of a mandatory program will come to an end. Will you today commit to implementing within the next year a mandatory vehicle emissions testing program for the Windsor-to-Ottawa corridor?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank the member opposite for the question. There are a number of issues of concern in this province and we continue to work on all of them. We've been recently talking about the issue of water, and the member opposite raises the issue of air. She will know that there is a pilot project ongoing right now called protectAir, which is a vehicle testing program that is being monitored to see how effective it is in reducing air emissions in the urban centres and to determine how well it works on a public basis.

Ms Churley: You've been talking about air and water all right; that's all you've been doing while you've been cutting and slashing, all through the Ministry of Environment and Energy, $200 million. We've been told that there are no plans for a mandatory vehicle emissions program such as the one in BC.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who told you that?

Ms Churley: We have our sources. In fact, we are told that you have no plans except to dismantle environmental protection. You cancelled the green communities program that helped reduce energy use, therefore creating less air pollution.

As I am sure you are aware, the city of Toronto passed what would have been Ontario's first bylaw to prevent vehicle idling. This would have helped to reduce smog, but incredibly the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing wouldn't allow the city of Toronto to proceed with the bylaw. Can you explain to the people of Ontario why you didn't stand up for air quality and human health in view of the Minister of Municipal Affairs' decision to prevent the city of Toronto from taking measures to protect our health?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I would like to say that there are many ways of dealing with air issues and we are exploring many of them. I mentioned the voluntary program. As a member of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, we have been working on new fuel formulations and new low-emission vehicle standards for the country of Canada, never mind the province.

There are a number of ways to go about this issue. We are working with partners to determine the best way to go forward to deal with the air issue as a whole in this province.

GREATER TORONTO AREA

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I've been all morning in my riding of St Andrew-St Patrick, where people were asking me what is happening to the GTA-Libby Burnham report. We haven't been hearing what is the status. I wonder if you could fill us in.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. The Burnham panel, led by Libby Burnham, with the help of our colleague Derwyn Shea, has --

Applause.

Hon Mr Leach: That's a very well-deserved round of applause.

They heard over 300 submissions, and they're in the process of finalizing their report. I expect to get their final report sometime this week. We all know that the GTA Task Force is going to affect the lives of millions of people for decades to come and we want to make sure, before we take any action, that we've reviewed every aspect of it.

Ms Bassett: Just to clarify, do you mean when you say before you take any action on it that you are going to consider the recommendations, or are you going to move forward on what Libby Burnham and Derwyn Shea's report suggests?

Hon Mr Leach: As we know, the Burnham report was established to get feedback on the recommendations from the Golden report from the GTA Task Force. Their direction was to see what type of consensus there was throughout the community.

We all know these issues are very complex, that we are going to have differences of opinion between those in the rural part of the community, those in the 905 area and those in the Toronto core. We want to make sure that before we make any decisions that are going to affect the members of our community for years to come, we have the input and response from everybody who wants to be involved. We intend to do that. Some of the answers were complex and are going to take a little time to review, but I can assure the member that we will have a direction coming forth within the next short period of time.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. He has made a very significant admission in this House this afternoon. He has told this assembly that, contrary to his first answer, which was that there was no special deal to the Haliburton board of education, he has now recanted and has admitted, as the Haliburton paper, as the Minden paper and as CBC have all reported, that in fact there was a very special deal made for the Haliburton board of education.

I met yesterday in my community of Renfrew county with representatives of the Renfrew County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. They have seen their grants cut by $2.75 million, which represents fully 10% of their operating dollars. They haven't heard anything about these special deals, and they are desperate to know what they are to do.

On their behalf, I ask the minister, how did he provide the special deal to Haliburton? Was it by applying the undue burden provision? If not, what mechanism other than that did he use? And what is he prepared to say to the Renfrew County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, which is facing a cut of $2.75 million this year, representing 10% of its operating dollars in a jurisdiction that is equally poor in terms of its assessment base as is the Haliburton board of education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Let me make it very clear to the member opposite. I don't know how many times today I will say this, but I'll keep saying it until -- perhaps if you write it down you won't have to ask the question again. We have not -- I have not, my ministry has not -- made a deal with the Haliburton board. However, as I have also said, if there's a board that believes it has an undue burden, I mentioned a little while ago that there is a regulation in the Education Act that permits boards to appeal to the ministry for relief.

If those come in, we will consider them in light of the precedents in the past. I'm sure that, as in the past, there may be a board or two or three that require some relief from a grant reduction.

However, I want to point out again, because I think this is important, that the savings we're asking school boards to make represent less than 2% of their operating costs. We believe school boards can make those reductions. If there is some further reduction in the grant, it will be because of an anomaly in the GLGs. I would have thought that a member who's been in this House for a long time would have already experienced that.

Mr Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, and I want you to hear this point of privilege.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member has a personal point of privilege?

Mr Conway: Absolutely, and it's a short one. Earlier this afternoon in question period, the Minister of Education said point blankly to my leader that there was no special deal, no deal whatsoever for Haliburton county. Later this afternoon, it's become absolutely clear that he made a special deal, that has been unadvertised, for the county board in Haliburton. That conduct is dishonourable, and I say to the Minister of Education that that dishonourable conduct now causes him to give an apology to this House because he did not tell the whole truth.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I have new information that relates directly to the point that the member for Renfrew North has just made.

The Speaker: I'll hear your point of privilege, but I want to say first that a point of privilege is something that's very grave and something out of order and I would like to hear it distinctly. I know there's a disagreement, but I will hear your point of privilege.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, my staff has just within minutes spoken to Mr Bradley, the superintendent of education of the Haliburton County Board of Education. He stated that the 15% cap, of last year's total operating cost, in cuts, was conveyed to the board by Mr Hodgson. He stated that the board and the ministry are still working out the details. This has been offered by the government and he knows of no regulation that would allow for this at this point.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Indeed, there is a disagreement here. Tomorrow --

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, we are not allowed to lie in this place. That's the fundamental question.

The Speaker: Order. Nobody is allowed to lie in this place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think you have some very good questions for question period tomorrow. That issue is over. Tomorrow there will be question period; it will be time to raise the issue again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: No, the question period is over. What's your point of privilege?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to ask you directly, Mr Speaker, about the provision of information through the Legislature to the public, as part of our responsibility here is to ensure that the public does have accurate information.

The leader of the third party has indicated that the announcement about the change in legislative grants to the Haliburton board was made directly by Mr Hodgson. It indicates similarly in this

article that the board has not received official notice of the legislative grant announcement. Mr Hodgson indicates that there are other boards similarly affected.

The way in which the government carries out its responsibilities to boards is to provide notice directly to the boards of the general legislative grants. Every board is waiting to have exact information before those grants come out. Mr Speaker, what --

The Speaker: Order. There's a process here also whereby you can have a five-minute late show, if that is the avenue you would like to proceed on, but we have dealt with it, we're in routine proceedings and the next item of business is motions.

Mrs McLeod: Then I will serve notice of my dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Education to my second question placed this afternoon and ask for that late show.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My point of order relates to the decision you made earlier this afternoon to remove the member for Welland-Thorold. I believe this is the third time you have chosen to name the member for Welland-Thorold, and while I understand I cannot appeal your decision, Mr Speaker, I do want to make it clear that I have serious concerns, given the behaviour of many members in this assembly.

I do not believe the member's behaviour was out of line with that of a great number of other members and I think it's coming very close to the point where members are going to feel that one member is being centred out by the Chair. I would just ask the Speaker to consider that.

The Speaker: Thank you. The House has not been under what I would call a quiet order in this Legislature. I had warned the member earlier on. There have been a lot of members today. On the weekend I had a lot of people talking to me about decorum in the Legislature and I think it's about time we all took a look at it and tried to be more even, and I've tried to be more even.

PETITIONS

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition put forward by a province-wide coalition of seniors, students and bus industry employees working together to protect transportation in small towns and rural areas. I've got hundreds of signatures from Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Transportation Minister Al Palladini has proposed legislation that will cost many towns their bus service.

"Bus companies are currently required to provide service for smaller towns as a condition of being given the rights to high-profit routes and charter markets. Minister Palladini's plan to deregulate will eliminate all conditions and requirements. As a result, hundreds of smaller communities like ours will lose bus service.

"Minister, people in smaller towns need bus service just as much as people in big cities. We depend upon buses to visit friends and family, to get to appointments in nearby towns, to ship our Christmas presents and to receive our repair parts.

"The undersigned call upon the members of the Legislative Assembly to oppose bus deregulation and the elimination of our bus service."

I'm proud to sign my signature to it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition that is signed by some number of individuals from in and around the Toronto area. It reads as follows:

"Whereas security of tenure, or the right to remain in our homes, is a basic need for all; and

"Whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons, and as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that rent controls remain in place and in effect for this province."

I sign that petition.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Six hundred and forty-seven good people from the city of Etobicoke signed this petition, and I would like to --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): There's more than 647 good people in Etobicoke.

Mr Stockwell: No, I didn't say that, although I could understand the member from Cochrane not understanding.

Anyway, this is what they had to say:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the situation regarding overcrowding in York Condominium Corp, 340 Queen's Court, and other locations has worsened considerably; and

"Whereas the Condominium Act has not been amended to correct this problem;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows" -- and this is where the rubber meets the road, as they say:

"To amend the Condominium Act to allow municipal personnel into individual condominiums to investigate overcrowding;

"To provide the condominium corporation with more control over rental units;

"To allow the condominium or its legal representative to enter a condominium without prior notice; and

"To allow the police to assist in the quiet enjoyment of the majority of occupants by working with the owners of the condominium to discourage loitering and disruptive behaviour by groups and individuals."

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have more of the 16,000 signatures to save the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That a recommendation by the psychiatric hospitals restructuring committee to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital be rejected.

"We believe the restructuring committee has not fully considered the case for retaining the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital.

"We believe the hospital and the community of St Thomas provide care and caring for psychiatric patients which is equal to and better than London.

"We believe closure of the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital will have a devastating impact on the economy and residents of St Thomas and Elgin county.

"We believe London can better absorb the impact of closure of the London Psychiatric Hospital.

"Finally, we believe it would be cheaper for government to retain the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital in terms of capital improvements required to both facilities.

"Therefore, we request that the government refrain from endorsing and implementing the recommendation to close the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition with respect to rent control, and it's signed by a good number of residents of my area who are expressing to the House their serious concern with the possible elimination of rent control. It goes like this:

"Whereas the Harris government is planning to remove rent controls; and

"Whereas the removal of rent control legislation breaks a campaign promise made by the Conservatives during the last election; and

"Whereas a great number of tenants are seniors and people on fixed incomes and many have had their incomes cut by 22% due to the social assistance cuts and cannot afford increases in their rent; and

"Whereas growing unemployment and the scarcity of affordable housing in Metro makes the removal of rent control an even greater disaster for tenants and for people who cannot afford to buy homes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario keep their pre-election promise and not remove rent controls and continue with the Landlord and Tenant Act and Rental Housing Protection Act."

I will affix my signature to that.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition from many people within my riding of London Centre to all members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the children of Ontario deserve accessible, quality child care; and

"Whereas the child care review committee of the Harris Conservative government is considering cutting subsidies to child care and threatening to introduce user fees; and

"Whereas the Harris Conservatives are also contemplating a number of changes to current child care legislation that would lower licensing standards so that child care centres would be required to renew their licences only every three years; and

"Whereas the child care committee of the Conservative government has discussed handing the enforcement of regulations over to a self-regulating body;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that child care subsidies be restored to the level introduced by the previous NDP government, that licensing standards be maintained at the current level and the Conservative government ensure that the enforcement of regulations not be devolved to the child care industry."

I'm proud to affix my signature.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I'd like to present a petition from a small group of people from Lincoln. I am not in total agreement, but I'll read it.

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services is undertaking a review of the child care system in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore stability and balance to the child care system by (1) ensuring that all licensed child care providers are treated equally, with all sectors having both the same benefits and responsibilities; (2) ensuring that all licensed child care centre staff receive the same benefits from the government, specifically wage enhancements and grants, regardless of the status of their employer; and (3) ensuring that all funding goes directly to the provision of care for the children and the families in need."

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I want to read another of the hundreds of petitions that have been presented in this House by myself and the member for Hamilton Centre regarding St Joseph's Hospital.

"Whereas the Common Sense Revolution states that a Conservative government will not cut health care funding; and

"Whereas during the 1995 election campaign, the Conservatives clearly promised to defend the health care system by protecting ministry funding, stating in their campaign backgrounder, `There will be no cuts to health care funding by a Harris government,' and calling this their first and most important commitment;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to reject all recommendations put forward by the Hamilton health task force related to any hospital closures in Hamilton-Wentworth, and in particular St Joseph's Hospital, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton."

I'm pleased to sign the petition as well.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Steve Watson and thousands of other Canadian Auto Workers members have not forgotten this government's anti-democratic procedures around Bill 26 and continue to send in petitions that read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"I oppose Bill 26. I protest this Tory proposal to (1) deregulate the price of prescribed medicine, (2) dismantle the services that make up the common fabric of our communities and (3) introduce a two-tier health system, one for the rich and one for the rest of the citizens of our province.

"This Bill 26 is draconian. The way it is being handled by the Tory government is anti-democratic. The government should withdraw this bill and commence broad, community-based consultations on the future of public services in Ontario."

I proudly affix my signature to theirs.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000, they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals; and

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of troubled youth, and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community; and

"Whereas the principles of discipline, self-help and a regimented environment at Transition House have combined with the counselling and support to provide youth with the motivation and self-respect to return to school or find jobs; and

"Whereas it has been shown that massive cuts to health services, school systems and social services have a definite impact on the statistics of children and youth in crisis; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and places the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham and Kent county."

I have affixed my name to this petition.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here another petition, this time signed from a number of people up from the community of North Bay actually.

"Whereas security of tenure, or the right to remain in our homes, is a basic need for all; and

"Whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons; and

"As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that rent controls remain in effect in this province."

I have affixed my signature.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in regard to rent control.

"That rent control abolition would lead to a steep rise in rent through the persistent shortage of affordable housing in Hamilton-Wentworth; among other factors, tenants who are among the most affected by ongoing mass layoffs, wage cuts and hiring freezes and senior citizens on fixed incomes will suffer greatly if rent controls are abolished. We are not in favour of the proposed abolition of rent controls by the government and urge this government not to get rid of rent controls in Ontario."

I affix my signature to the petition.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

This was organized by Greg Cressman and I affix my signature to the petition also.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "We, the undersigned, are opposed to the proposed changes to workers' compensation in Ontario, including the elimination of the current bipartite board of directors; the reduction of temporary benefits from 90% to 85%; the introduction of an unpaid waiting period for compensation benefits; legislated limits on entitlements, reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements;

"Workers' compensation is not a handout; it is a legal obligation that the employers of this province have to workers in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent accidents, no reduction in current staff levels at WCB and continued support for the bipartite board structure."

This is signed by a number of residents from Leamington, Wheatley and Tilbury.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have here a petition, this time from the city of Toronto, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas security of tenure or the right to remain in our homes is a basic need for all; and

"Whereas uncontrolled rent increases force many tenants from their homes for both economic and other reasons; and

"As the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Premier of Ontario have both expressed publicly their desire to abolish rent control;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to protect the security of tenure of Ontario tenants by ensuring that rent controls remain in effect for the people of this province."

I have signed that petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT, 1996

Mr Ron Johnson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr60,

An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr Harnick, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 44,

An Act to amend the Election Act / Projet de loi 44, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale.

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

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 34, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any debate? Who had the floor last, please? The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I did plan to come into the House today to speak about Bill 34 and some specifics that were related to this bill that are of grave concern to everyone in education and all those affected by education. I do think, though, that the latest happenings over the last couple of days where it's come to light that our Minister of Education and Training has decided to take after his leader, the Premier, in bringing the good old days back to Ontario -- Mulroney has come down from the mountain and descended on the Legislature in this new reincarnation that looks an awful lot like the Minister of Education and Training, Mr John Snobelen.

I have to tell you that I have some grave concerns about what our minister in the House today has alluded to under questioning from those of us in the Liberal caucus who asked the Minister of Education to explain why there is a board of education in the Haliburton area that received a significant level of cuts and why that board suddenly had their cuts reduced by three quarters of their full amount. Why would it be that the Haliburton area seems to have a Conservative member of provincial Parliament? Not only is he an MPP and a Conservative; he is also a member of cabinet.

To me it is clear this government is about deals. This government is prepared to make a deal. For me and where I come from, that is just not good enough. The people of Ontario are going to say, "I do not want leaders who are prepared to come to Queen's Park and make deals," so if you happen to have children who live in the riding of a cabinet minister, your education level just might be okay, but if you happen to live and have children who attend a school system in some other riding that doesn't have a cabinet minister in it, your board is going to be faced with enormous, insurmountable cuts, which is what's happening across Ontario today.

All I've got to say is, I want the people of Ontario to know this Conservative government is about making deals. They're making deals when it comes to the environment, they're making deals when it comes to the selling of Hydro, deals when it comes to the LCBO, but finally you have gone far enough. The Minister of Education is making deals when it comes to the education of the children in Ontario. It is totally unacceptable. It is reprehensible.

I cannot go back to the people of Windsor and say that I have anything to do with the group of Ontario parliamentarians that is led by the likes of John Snobelen and Mike Harris, who are all about making deals. Who's paying the piper over there?

We have the people in education from the wonderful area of Victoria-Haliburton who were devastated to hear that they were facing $1.2 million. When you come from a board which is a low-tax-assessment board, you have a desperate time trying to fund the quality level of education that we have all come to expect across Ontario. I have county rural boards in Windsor-Essex county as well and indeed in my riding. They have suffered historically from not having the level of funding required to provide all of the programs they would like to.

I would submit that there are areas in my own riding that are very similar in terms of the tax levels and moneys flowing to the board that the same minister, Chris Hodgson, has in Victoria-Haliburton. I, however, am not a member of cabinet. I, however, do not have the ear of the Minister of Education and Training, because what it took was people to get to Chris Hodgson and for Hodgson to make a call to the minister and say, "We need to make a deal." What they did was make --

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 23(b), could the Speaker direct me, exactly which part of this diatribe is pursuant to Bill 34?

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mrs Pupatello: I must say I find it interesting that the member, Mr Clement, should try to find a point of order with what I'm saying. He's been in the House certainly a lot longer than I have, and there are

definitions in the book. All of us have them in our desks.

Let me say that we are talking about --

Mr Clement: Point of privilege.

The Acting Speaker: You know what a point of privilege is.

Mr Clement: My rights are violated by that --

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of privilege. Take your seat, please. The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: I agree. That has nothing to do with our discussion this afternoon. Bill 34 represents what this government is doing to education across Ontario. What it outlines is how boards across Ontario will, if they must, eliminate JK, for example, what they will be doing to the teaching profession across Ontario. The boards must make this decision based on the level of funding they receive from the ministry. But what we have heard over this past weekend and all day in the House today is that the level of funding that comes from the ministry depends on the kind of deal you can make with the Minister of Education and Training.

So don't talk to me about what is included in Bill 34, because educators across Ontario know what appropriate programs are for their area. They know what they're supposed to be doing for the children in an equitable fashion, no matter where they come from in Ontario. But what makes the difference now is that they can't offer JK if you come from Durham, because they don't have the money, and so they've cancelled it. They don't have the money if you're in Peel county; they don't have the money to offer JK. Now, they may have had the money if there happened to be a cabinet minister who could make a deal with the Minister of Education.

I see the member for Lambton here. How nice to see you today. I happened to be Petrolia on Friday evening and spoke with a number of people, and I say to the member how difficult it must be for you to watch what your fellow members are doing, the deals they're making, because you for the last 20 years have been a solid member of the Liberal Party but now you're sitting on that side of the House, opportunistically taking advantage of running as a Conservative member. I must tell you, Petrolia is a beautiful part of Ontario.

I must say that while I may get carried away with comments in the House about what happened today, when we realize that the Minister of Education is nothing but an incarnation of Brian Mulroney and so is the Premier, Mike Harris -- Brian Mulroney has come down from the mountain incarnated in Mike Harris, and now that, that same kind of attitude, the dealmaking that is going on, this is the stuff of legend.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I'd just like to remind the member that we're debating Bill 34.

Mrs Pupatello: It is of grave concern to me that for all of history, when the Ontario government decided they were in charge of education in Ontario and they would see that all children who come through the system in Ontario are guaranteed a level of quality, equitable education, in the passing of Bill 34 we have lost that, because Bill 34 allows school boards -- which must make decisions because their funding has been cut. They have made decisions to cut JK not because educators haven't recognized the need for JK but because they do not have the funding.

In committee with the minister in January, Dealmaker Snobelen, he said: "We are not cutting JK. We're making it optional." That was absolutely the furthest from the truth in committee last January. But here we have Bill 34, and they are saying in Bill 34 it has now become optional. Why? Because they've cut all the money allowable for places across Ontario which would like to honour that.

The more you see it in the press, the more the Conservative members ought to know this is not anecdotal on junior kindergarten; long-time and scientific research shows that the more we have in education for early childhood, the better the children will perform, not just in school but in life. In fact, when we spend the money in early childhood education, for every dollar spent, we save $7 in social spending later on. This is not anecdotal, this is scientific. You can see it editorialized in papers today. It's not as though it were not a known area.

If there were one area the Minister of Education would understand if he were truly a Minister of Education, it would be the significance of early childhood education. Instead, he's come forward with Bill 34 that literally will gut it from many places across Ontario.

Again it depends on the money the school boards receive. I would encourage all the educators, trustees, nay, all members of the public across Ontario to call Minister Hodgson, because he has the magic touch. He can call the Minister of Education and say, "Please don't make those kinds of cuts to my school board." It works, because the Minister of Education is a dealmaker.

Let me share with you the CBC radio script: "Local MPP Chris Hodgson, a cabinet minister, managed a little political magic and had the cut reduced by two thirds." What do you say to the people in Lambton? What do you say to the people in St Andrew and St David? What do you say to the people in your ridings when you don't come from an area that happens to be held by a cabinet minister and now these cabinet ministers have the power to change the level of funds? I can't wait to go back home to my riding to talk to my Windsor board of education, Catholic board of ed in Windsor, and certainly those in the county, to say, "It's the cabinet ministers who are making these decisions."

I have to tell you how disappointed I am, because there are some things across Ontario that we all believe are good things and required for the future. The Liberal caucus for several months now in here has brought out the issue of youth employment and what education means, the fact that jobs are desperately required, especially for young people. The media now has been playing for weeks on end -- every weekend there are special editions on the issue of jobs and how related all this is to education.

Even in the Globe, Saturday, April 20, this past Saturday, speaking about relevance to jobs, it reads: "The determining factor, more often than not, is education." In fact, for the period between 1990 and 1995, "The breakdown is enlightening: For those with high school education or less, there were 887,000 fewer jobs; for those with at least some post-secondary education, there were 1.2 million more jobs."

What we must realize as legislators is that when we're making decisions, when we're trying to pass -- or not -- bills like 34, we've got to see what the long-term impact is going to be. Clearly educators, people who work in the field, parents, children, young adults, are telling you that the changes you are making in education in Ontario are not good in the long term for the people of Ontario. That is a significant point.

Our minister has shown little regard for people's opinions. The Minister of Education has shown that he is not prepared to listen to the people, the people who work in the industry and who are affected by the industry.

The people at home always tell me, "Oh, those guys on the other side of the House, they're not listening to us anyway," but perhaps they'll listen to others, to what the KPMG Transformation Update -- I think members opposite even get this in their offices -- talks about in terms of change, "The key issue for governments will be how best to achieve the change."

This is put out by KPMG. They discuss: "The key element in change is consultation. In some areas, consultation with affected groups or citizens to obtain consensus on restructuring strategies will be critical to successful transformation. The governments need to tell stakeholders what the resource framework is, the policy intent, the range of options to be considered, the desired outcomes."

This Minister of Education has failed to do so. This Minister of Education has not done this kind of consultation. From the get-go, when first named minister, he had record six-minute meetings with what he calls interest groups, but people who are dedicated to the education system, so he's failed in terms of consultation. He has failed in telling the public where he intends to go with education. All we see at the end of the day is Bill 34 and this is hurtful in the long term to education in Ontario.

I cannot help but wonder why Bill 34 is so critical today. All I can say is that this government is intent on removing the tax cut information as far away from the cuts it is making to ministries as possible. This is very clever from a marketing perspective, and I suppose that's more of the whiz kids at work at Queen's Park and in the office of the Premier, but we must not forget the reason the cuts are being made in this way and this deeply. The reason, so the government says, is because they are deficit-fighters, because they are going to attack the debt, because they've got to get rid of the deficit.

I will not use Liberal numbers in this House; I will only use the numbers that were given to us by the esteemed Minister of Finance. In his own numbers, the debt in 1995-96 was at $97.2 billion, but in 1996-97, after we are suffering the effects of what they are doing to education, the debt is growing; the debt is growing to $105 billion.

Why are people suffering in the way they're suffering, at the depth they are suffering, and they are still nowhere near moving in the right direction in attacking the debt? They have created some kind of an illusion that they are going to do all of this because they're going to attack the debt, and what happens is that by the time this gang is prepared to go back to the electorate, the debt will never have been higher in the province of Ontario.

When I see the kind of information this government refuses to bring into play when it talks about the cuts, the real reason is the tax cut. The government is going to borrow money to finance a tax cut, and in my community when parents are seriously concerned about whether they are going to have junior kindergarten, I have a problem with that; so do they.

If we look at some of the numbers available, numbers that are important to remember, the number of teachers -- I guess this government would call these people "interest groups," but we must remember that we have 11 million people in the province of Ontario: 210,000 of them work as teachers; the number of Ontario citizens who go to school every day is two million; then we have the number of Ontario citizens who have children in school and that number is 2.75 million.

Now we are talking about half the population of Ontario somehow tied up with the education system, and I say to the dealmaker, the Minister of Education, is this a special-interest group if these people are concerned about it? Does that not say that half the people of Ontario are concerned about what they are doing to dismantle the education system?

I want to tell a story to the House. Many of our members of the House were invited to attend schools in the last session, and I did my share as well. I remember going into a very young class where the children were about five years old, and there was one child who was sitting off by himself and not interacting with other children. There was an awful lot of learning happening in the room in very different ways, certainly very different from when I was in school at that age.

These children were learning by playing, and this one child was not involved whatsoever in the play. He sat there quite alone. It was obvious that he was off by himself. I remember going o