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

January 21, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L148 - Tue 21 Jan 1997 / Mar 21 Jan 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOLDCORP LABOUR DISPUTE

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

HUGHES ELCAN

HIGHWAY 17

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

TRUCKING SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHANGING TIDES IN EDUCATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEAM CANADA

VISITOR

PRESS GALLERY PRESIDENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROPERTY TAXATION

PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PROPERTY TAXATION

SALT CONTAMINATION

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ST MARYS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

LAKE HURON FISHERY

MANDATORY INQUESTS

BEAR HUNTING

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SCHOOL CLASS SIZES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA TAILLE DES CLASSES SCOLAIRES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOLDCORP LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Labour. Minister, for months I have been asking you to personally intervene in the eight-month strike at the Goldcorp mine in Balmertown.

This strike, as you're aware, is just one in a series of strikes throughout the province that has seen management run roughshod over hardworking and dedicated men and women with your government's blessing.

My municipal colleagues and I are very concerned that this strike will have a long-term effect on families, the community and, more importantly, the children of these workers.

Let me read from an

article which appeared in our local media just before the Christmas break: "Social issue discussions in Linda Aucoin's grade 4-5 class are taking on a new light -- many of the students have parents on strike. They know the issues, they know strikes really hurt everybody." Ms Aucoin went on to state that she and her colleagues see "children come to school cold and hungry, their lunches as obscure sometimes as a tomato."

Workers and their families want to know when the Minister of Labour will finally intervene in this situation and use her office to bring an end to this strike.

It is clear to everyone concerned that this minister does not understand the seriousness of the situation. Like my constituents who work at Goldcorp, I am outraged that you would allow Goldcorp to continue this strike while children are going to school cold and hungry and the community is suffering. These workers would prefer to be working and they are outraged at your lack of concern for them and their families.

Obviously, workers' rights are not a priority with this minister.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today I want to make a statement on aboriginal rights. I'd like to direct my statement to the Minister of Natural Resources and the minister responsible for native affairs.

I want to make this government fully aware of a very serious situation that has been developing since November 1996 in my riding of Cochrane North. The Constance Lake First Nation has complained that their aboriginal and treaty rights are being infringed upon by the Minister of Natural Resources and a lumber company within their own reserve. A few months ago, a member of the first nation was told to remove his traps on reserve land because the company wanted to start logging in the area. The first nation doesn't object to forestry activities, but will object to any infringement of their rights.

The MNR is responsible for issuing licences for harvesting wood. Your government must therefore play an active role in resolving this dispute as soon as possible. If this situation is allowed to escalate further, nobody will win.

The economic development and stability of the area depend on a resolution of this conflict. That's why I urge you today to stay on top of this highly sensitive situation and to pay attention to a letter that was sent from Chief Raymond Ferris of the Constance Lake First Nation, along with the national chief, Ovide Mercredi, as well as the grand chief, Charles D. Fox.

They are very much concerned about this situation. They don't want it to develop into another situation like happened at Ipperwash, and I'm asking both ministers to stay on top of this situation now.

HUGHES ELCAN

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Last week I had the pleasure of participating in a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the opening of a new expansion at Hughes Elcan Optical Technology, which is a major employer in my riding.

Hughes Elcan is a definite business success story that is helping to put central Ontario on the global marketplace map.

This 55,000-square-foot expansion is needed in order to meet the demand for projected growth in the near future. Presently Elcan has approximately 625 personnel, and it is anticipated that by the year 2000 the company will employ approximately 1,000 and increase its sales from $106 million to over $150 million.

Hughes Elcan is a major exporter and world leader in the design, development and manufacture of high-precision optics, opto-mechanical components and devices, systems and assemblies; 90% of product sales to their major customers, including Panavision, Imax and Polaroid, are exported.

This expansion is a promising sign for growth for the community of Midland and for Ontario.

In speaking with Elcan's president, Dr Joe DeRemigis, he attributes the company's success to the skill, hard work, dedication and commitment of its employees.

That one of the world's leading high-technology companies is growing so successfully in Ontario and in Muskoka-Georgian Bay should serve as an example that the province is open for business.

I'm certain I speak for my constituents when I say we are very proud to have Hughes Elcan as a member of our local and provincial business community.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Last Wednesday Paul Godin of Rockland, a father of two, was killed on Highway 17. On July 9, 1996, another man from Rockland, Denis Trottier, was killed on Highway 17. On June 21, 1996, Allan Isabel was killed in a motorcycle accident near Rockland.

In January 1996, on this same stretch of highway where 23 serious accidents occurred in the last eight months, another man from Rockland, Mr Ian Shiveral, was killed in a traffic accident. Last November, a mere 10 months later, the late Ian Shiveral's son Bryan and two other students from Rockland District High School were involved in a fatal accident at that same killer stretch of Highway 17. Bryan Shiveral suffered serious injuries.

Bryan Shiveral is only 19. He lost his father in a car accident in 1996 and his mother in 1995. Fortunately, Bryan is a very positive young man. I want to bring encouraging words to Bryan, who is still in the hospital, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Rockland Lions Club and the Rockland OPP volunteer victims' group, especially Garth Hampson, who organized a Bash for Bryan that was attended by more than 500 people at the Rockland District High School on Sunday.

Once again, the people of Prescott-Russell have shown great community spirit.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): A year ago, when the Minister of Northern Development and Mines announced that the norOntair service that had been established in northern Ontario by the Davis government, serving 17 communities, would be discontinued, we indicated that we believed the private sector would not be able to pick up these routes and make a profit.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines at that time, though, assured us that all the communities served by norOntair would indeed get good service from the private sector and that the private sector would be more efficient and would make a profit.

Three communities immediately did not get air service from the private sector and so the minister set up a subsidy system with Pem Air. Since that time, most of the private carriers have abandoned the routes they took over. Now as many as 10 communities in northern Ontario, including Wawa in my constituency, do not have air service from the private sector.

The minister has caused this problem and he hasn't fixed it. He has extended a subsidy to Wawa, but the service now goes through Sudbury instead of Sault Ste Marie. These subsidies run only until the end of March. The question is, what happens at the end of March? Will there be air service properly serving these communities in northern Ontario after the end of the fiscal year?

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Tories broke the system. Now it's time they fixed it.

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am proud and deeply honoured to rise and pay tribute to everyone from my community involved in organizing the 1997 Ontario Ladies Curling Championships being held in Peterborough January 22 to 26.

The 10 best women's curling teams from across Ontario will gather in Peterborough to demonstrate their skills and precision on the ice in order to become the province's representatives at the 1997 Scott Tournament of Hearts next month in Vancouver.

Peterborough has a remarkable history of hosting major provincial and national sporting events. Peterborough has been a host to national lacrosse championships, provincial softball championships, the Memorial Cup and now a provincial curling tournament.

The dedication and hard work of tournament convenor Joan Martin of the Peterborough Curling Club and all the people at the club and the many volunteers is most greatly appreciated.

Congratulations to my constituents. I am confident that the 1997 Ontario Ladies Curling Championship in Peterborough will be the best ever.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): The only thing that's gone up faster than municipal property taxes in Ontario in the last week is the number of incidents involving flying truck wheels. The Minister of Transportation has repeatedly said that his initiatives in the last two years will help to curb a problem that everyone in this province is afraid of.

We know that this minister's actions to date have not solved the problem. The Ontario Provincial Police have said we have a very serious problem that isn't being dealt with in the Metro Toronto area. The Canadian Automobile Association has said we have a serious problem that's not being dealt with properly. The official opposition has asked for a legislative inquiry into this issue so that we can deal with it in its entirety, so that we can have public hearings before the people so that all groups that are affected and all parties that have an interest have an opportunity to respond.

We again urge the minister to agree to a legislative inquiry into the issue of truck safety and truck safety inspections and allow this process to unfold so that we can work together to ensure that the number of accidents related to truck safety and flying wheels eventually goes down in this province.

The minister has not responded. We call upon him again today to recognize the fear and concern resultant from this issue and deal with it responsibly so the people of this province feel safer on their roads.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): In Metropolitan Toronto, today as we speak, the most amazing development of citizen-led democracy can be seen. The Tory government has been turning up its nose and treating with scorn and disdain the efforts of citizens who come together to voice their opposition to this government's agenda with respect to the megacity and the mega-dumping of services on Metropolitan Toronto.

Just a few short weeks ago 20 people coming together, forming themselves into a group called Citizens for Local Democracy, began the process of meeting on a weekly basis. In four short weeks, last night at that meeting there were over 1,500 people. That movement is growing. I want to say to those people:

(1) Congratulations;

(2) Your work is paying off. We just got word today that there has now been an agreement on the part of the government not to call Bill 103 this afternoon. This is really important because that puts off yet another day the passage of a time allocation motion and the passage of second reading of this bill.

That commitment came along with finally an agreement to have a House leaders' meeting so that we can sit down and discuss the process of this bill. As I've said before in this House, last Thursday the New Democratic caucus, through our House leader, put out our demands: We want full public hearings, we want everyone to be heard, we want them around Metropolitan Toronto and all the cities and we want third reading to happen after the democratic expression of the referenda. That's not too much ask.

CHANGING TIDES IN EDUCATION

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): I would like to advise the House and the people of Ontario that I recently had the privilege of taking

part in a conference at Ridley College in St Catharines entitled Changing Tides in Education.

The keynote address was by our Minister of Education and Training, the Honourable John Snobelen. He acknowledged that we are about to embark on a change process, a process that can be both positive and transformational for the children and youth of this great province, who often cannot envision their own futures.

Just as the minister's address was upbeat and visionary, so too were the other speakers: Pauline Laing, Jean Hewitt and Jim Lang.

Mrs Laing, having recently joined the ministry from the Durham Board of Education, spoke on the topic of the current secondary school reform process.

Dr Hewitt has been a teacher and school leader for many years and offers workshops for teachers and school administrators on leadership and educational change.

Mr Lang is well known to most educators as an internationally recognized authority on entrepreneurship in education.

I want to personally acknowledge and thank the minister for coming to the Niagara region, and Ridley College for its leadership. It was very much appreciated.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEAM CANADA

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise today to update the members of the Legislature on the recent Team Canada trade mission. Let me begin by saying how proud I was to have led Ontario's largest ever Team Canada delegation, and the single largest group on this trip, as we did business in Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.

Our delegation had outstanding representation from all sectors of our economy: 65 businesses, as well as business associations representing Ontario manufacturers, exporters, agribusinesses and health care, joined us on this trip. We also had representatives from four governmental agencies, which support Ontario firms' export and business activities, and 12 educational institutions.

Mayor Morrow of Hamilton, Mayor Christie of Kitchener, Mayor McCallion of Mississauga, Mayor Cousens of Markham, Mayor Holtzman of Ottawa, Regional Chair Clark from Ottawa-Carleton and Metro Toronto Councillor Cho rounded out a most distinguished group.

I want to acknowledge the dedication, the professionalism and the strength of the Ontario delegation and its contribution to the mission and the ongoing economic growth and prosperity of our province.

I had one main objective in participating in this mission. That objective was to bring jobs to Ontario, and I believe we accomplished that goal.

I had the honour of overseeing contract signings by Ontario business leaders in Seoul, Korea, worth more than $140 million. I signed two important memoranda of understanding between the Ontario International Trade Corp and two of Korea's main construction associations.

The first agreement was signed with the Korean Housing Builders Association. It will provide a framework for joint initiatives which promote Ontario's manufactured housing and building products capabilities to Korean builders.

The second agreement was signed with the International Contractors Association of Korea. This agreement will facilitate initiatives, such as seminars and exchange of business delegations, designed to familiarize Korean contractors with Ontario's engineering and consulting capabilities.

In the Philippines, Ontario's high-tech companies netted the most deals. The new agreements, valued at more than $100 million, are in the areas of engineering, telecommunications, solar power, computer networks and fire protection systems technology. These deals will help to create the kind of highly skilled jobs in Ontario that the province needs in this information age.

Our leading-edge industries had similar success in Thailand, signing agreements worth over $240 million. These agreements ranged from the introduction of a wireless telecommunications system to the establishment of a network of laboratories specializing in environmental testing, to a satellite technology contract with the Asia Broadcasting and Communications network.

Team Ontario and the results we produced are evidence of the value of partnerships between the public and private sectors in promoting our great province abroad. We returned not only with signed deals in our hands but with great potential for more business down the road. We marketed everything from software to wine, from pre-engineered homes to Candu reactors, from cattle hides to insurance.

Together we were able to strengthen prospects for Ontario businesses in overseas markets. This approach, as many of you know, is a crucial part of our government's Market Ontario strategy to bring jobs to our province.

In the past 18 months our government has moved forward on our plan to make Ontario the number one jurisdiction in which to live, work, invest and raise a family.

We are cutting income taxes to create jobs -- as much as 40% for low-income families. We have removed barriers to job creation by eliminating red tape and unnecessary regulation and by reducing the costs of doing business. We have given hope to people caught in the cycle of welfare dependency by making mandatory work for welfare a reality in Ontario. Already 200,000 fewer people are dependent on welfare today than when our government took office.

We're making much-needed investments in health care technology. We're strengthening opportunities for our young people by restoring quality, accountability and higher standards to our education system. We're lifting the burden of debt on our children by ending government waste and duplication and by staying the course for a balanced budget.

Our plan is working. As we on Team Ontario told everyone we met on this recent mission, "In Ontario the future's right here."

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to welcome the Premier back, although, I must say, it's as if he never left. We saw his picture on TV every night in a very expensive advertising campaign under way.

There was a time when we used to send our leaders to Asian countries to provide them with some instruction in some of the fundamental tenets of democracy. Maybe it's time we invite Asian leaders here to instruct our leader in some of the basics of democracy. That's bringing me to the issue of megacity.

This Premier wants to impose upon the people of Metro Toronto tremendous change and, in response to that change, the people of Toronto have decided in their wisdom, through their municipal representatives, to hold referenda. This government insists that it intends to proceed with this change without paying any attention whatsoever to the results of those referenda. Those voices ought to be heeded and, just as those people have a right to express their opinion, this government has a corresponding obligation to pay heed to that opinion.

Mega-week was unleashed, Mr Premier, as you will well know, across the land last week, and we have come to the conclusion, quite simply, as have various other groups, that the net result is a property tax explosion for the people of Ontario. You have downloaded, you have transferred an additional $1 billion in new costs to property taxpayers right across the province, and there are some implications that are not so obvious and we haven't really had time to address those, but I want to take a moment just to do that right now.

As a result of this transfer of what are sometimes called soft costs on to property taxpayers, Ontario in the long run is going to become a less caring and compassionate place in which to live. Take welfare, for instance. The benefits you obtain through welfare are now going to become a function, in part, of where you live. We have moved away from that over a number of decades in Ontario. The provincial government has assumed responsibility for those in need.

What we're doing now is downloading this responsibility, which is properly that of the government of Ontario, on to individual municipalities, and it's not so farfetched to think that municipalities will be sending not-so-subtle signals to welfare recipients, for instance, that it would be better for them if they were to move on. "Move along, we can't afford you. You're interfering with our quality of life. If we pay for you, then we can't afford our public transit, we can't afford public housing, we can't afford public health." That's an implication I think this Premier doesn't really understand. At the end of the day what we're talking about is a less caring and compassionate Ontario.

Those communities that are going to be hardest hit by those are the larger urban centres, places like Ottawa and Toronto in particular. The larger urban centres with large cores will have no choice but to continue to assume responsibility for those who are down and out on their luck and those in the other centres will find it easier to move them along.

It was a sad week for Ontario last week. Not only are we talking about an additional $1 billion in property taxes that are going to be dealt out to property taxpayers throughout the province, we're also looking at a future that's not as bright. Contrary to what the Premier would have us believe, it's not as bright in Ontario. As a result of last week's initiatives it's going to be a less caring and compassionate place in which to live.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I think the Premier is going to have to take many more of these missions abroad to make up for the damage he's wreaking at home. By his offloading, by this government's offloading of all these additional costs on to municipalities, you are destroying our domestic economy as a result, and it's not coming back in the numbers this government had hoped. The job creation isn't there. The government has an abysmal record in job creation.

Mr Premier, get out there and sell Ontario even more. We should have you out there every week doing this to make up for the damage you've brought Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I know it's been a long time since you've talked to each other, since of course caucuses this morning, so I'd appreciate it if you could just go back to your seats, particularly the Minister of Environment and Energy, actually. You're causing me the most problems out there. It's sometimes more difficult to know whether you're in your seat or not, but I can tell now that you moved. Thank you.

Responses, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I found it quite interesting that in the week when the government was downloading health care costs, downloading social assistance costs, downloading transportation costs, downloading policing costs, downloading library costs on to municipalities and the municipal taxpayer in order to find $3 billion to finance their tax cut for the wealthy, while that was happening in Ontario and municipalities were having to deal with all of that bad news, the Premier was trying to hide on the other side of the world.

We know that the Premier likes the United States, we know that the Premier likes the American way of doing things, and it's a fine tradition in the United States that when things aren't going well at home, the President tries to go abroad to somehow get away from the news.

Premier, we see through your strategy. While your government is forcing all the nasty decisions down on to municipalities and down on to the municipal tax base and putting municipalities in a position where either they have to start cutting these important community services or they have to start cutting these important health care services or they have to raise the municipal property tax substantially, you're trying to dissociate yourself from it as much as possible and finding a diversion elsewhere in the world.

I want to say something about your trip. I found it interesting that while you were gone, a couple of newspapers did some research and found that our exports to countries like Korea, the Philippines and Thailand have actually gone down over the two years that you've been making these trips. Perhaps you'd like to explain to people why our exports to these countries have actually been going down during the two years you've been making trips to these Asian countries.

I also think, Premier, you should respond to this: A newspaper that identifies very closely with you, a newspaper that has a hard time saying anything bad about your government, the Toronto Sun, noted that more jobs have disappeared in November and December through your government cutbacks than were created by the private sector. The statistics released by your government and reported by the Sun report that Ontario lost 25,000 jobs in the last four months due to your cutbacks. Private sector employment rose by 7,000 in December while public sector employment fell by 19,000 in December; in other words, a net loss of 12,000 jobs in one month because of your cutbacks.

I also think the Premier should answer for something else. The Premier says 200,000 fewer people are on social assistance, but not even that many jobs have been created. Even if we assume that all of the jobs this Premier talks about -- and there aren't nearly enough -- even if we assume that all the people who were on social assistance got those jobs, there are still a whole bunch unaccounted for. I suspect those people are out on the street. I suspect they've become the homeless. If that's what the Premier was trying to tell people in Asia is good about Ontario, what an awful message.

I would like the Premier to explain something else. We know that there are 87,000 more people unemployed in Ontario today than there were a year ago at this time. In fact, Premier, you are falling further behind. You create a few jobs because, yes, American interest rates are low and Canadian interest rates are low, but in fact you're falling further and further behind. In the Common Sense Revolution you talked about 725,000 new jobs. You're so far off the mark that you can't even call that a target any more, and you're falling further and further behind. In fact the unemployment rate among young people is going higher; the real unemployment rate among young people is getting worse.

Then I want to say just a word about education, because you say here that you've done some good things in education. The only thing I can see is that your Minister of Education has tried to create a lot of diversions so that while there are diversions and while there's a lot of confusion, he can reach in there and take another $1 billion out of education, another $1 billion away from our children.

Then there's health care. The only news that I see in health care is more nurses being laid off, more jobs --

The Speaker: Thank you.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to direct your attention to the members' gallery west. In there is the previous member for Waterloo North, Mr Herb Epp. Welcome.

PRESS GALLERY PRESIDENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I have a point of privilege that I think you as Speaker and in your previous incarnation as an opposition member would have a good deal of interest in. I'm seeking your assistance in this regard.

This morning the president of the Queen's Park press gallery, Richard Brennan, was interrogated by the Ontario Provincial Police because of the fact that he was able to gain access to a report that we in the opposition, you will recall, were seeking some time ago when the government was dealing with the issue of video lottery terminals. The report was entitled Gambling in Ontario: Current Enforcement Concerns, 1995. We felt that was relevant to the bill being discussed.

However, my concern is a greater one, and that is the use of the OPP -- and you're in charge of people within this precinct, or you help us out, I know, on many occasions. We know there are people who are concerned about this.

I know, for instance, this view was shared by the now chief communications officer for the Premier, who said previously, "There's an undeniable sense of apprehension when a police officer sent by your government comes to your office unannounced and asks you questions about what you do and do not know." He went on to say, "The use of the police in this manner could have a significant chilling effect on people who happen to acquire documents that the government prefer not see the light of day."

I know even the Solicitor General, Mr Runciman, was concerned about this in the past, and that's why I raise it again. He said, "This appears to be a witchhunt to save the government some embarrassment. I want to say that it's an outrage," when the similar incident happened previously. He went on to say, "I want the minister to stand up in the House today and apologize to Mr Brennan, apologize to Mr Coyle, apologize to the people of Ontario for using the police for political purposes."

I'm concerned that a member of the press gallery, and the president in this case, simply because he was able to gain access to a report that many of us in this House felt should be provided to the members of this assembly in any event, is being intimidated through the use of an interrogation by the OPP.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I just have a quick question on the point of privilege. I'd like to ask the member if he knows, did this interrogation take place within the precinct?

Mr Bradley: I am not aware whether it did. The individual involved is an individual who works within this precinct and deals with matters within this precinct.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Is it on the same point of privilege, the member for Algoma? Well, I'll say before you get up -- it's very short -- that I need to know whether it happened in here or not. Obviously, if it didn't happen in this place, then there's not a lot the Speaker will or can do about it. I will say that the reporter did come to me previous to this happening and asked about the process and said that he was going to be interrogated.

I directly said to the reporter, "No, it can't happen in the precinct," and, "No, I will not allow the police to come in here to interrogate you." I can only assume then that it didn't happen in here. I hope, the member for Algoma, you can tell me one way or the other. If you can, that's fine. But unless it happened in the precinct, there's no point of privilege.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the point of privilege, Speaker: I know that you are aware of members in the time of the previous government who used to, as a way of making a point, hold up a sign "Call Police," even though that was a demonstration, which is of course not allowed according to the rules in the assembly. The point was being made that a government cannot and should not, must not, try to intimidate critics, particularly members of the assembly, particularly members of the press who are carrying out their responsibility to report on the public affairs of the House.

I can tell you that I understand the interrogation did not take place in this precinct, but it still does not deal with the fact that the government is attempting to bully its critics.

The Speaker: Let me say this then: There are two points here. The point of privilege doesn't extend to members of the media. Secondly, it didn't take place in the precinct, so clearly there's no jurisdiction that I have over the privilege. To the members for St Catharines and Algoma, there's no need for me to take this away to even consider it. There is simply no point of privilege. It may be something you'll want to ask the government about. That's within order. But strictly on a point of privilege, no, it doesn't exist.

Mr Bradley: May I just ask you a question then and you can help me out with this, where I might take this, just a very quick question? What if the Solicitor General had ordered this investigation? What would I do then?

The Speaker: Again, you can't have a speculative point of privilege; you either have it or you don't.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Speaker, I just wanted to raise a point of order and ask through you if the government House leader would help to clarify something which does have an impact on the orderly procedures in the House, certainly for this afternoon. It's my understanding that the government does not intend today to call Bill 103. I ask, because there are lots of people here who are interested in this issue, if we can get a clear understanding from the government House leader --

The Speaker: I appreciate where you're heading with this, and it's not a point of order or a point of privilege, and it is in fact out of order. The process is very clear, it's printed, it's on your desk. Those are the procedures. The orders of the day are called. They can be called by the House leader. He calls them when they're due. If it's to be announced or whatever, that is not unusual. So no, I simply will not allow the House leader to start entertaining questions like that pre-question period. You can ask him in question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Last night I went to a meeting of some 1,500 people who had gathered together in downtown Toronto in response to plans on the part of your government to bring about massive change to the way Metro Toronto is organized. They asked me to give you a message, quite simply. They said: "Tell the Premier that the people of Toronto don't want to be forced into a megacity. Tell him we need full public hearings, not just a token week or two." They said to tell him not to decide on a megacity until they've had an opportunity to vote in a referendum.

Premier, are you going to do that for them? On their behalf, I'm asking, will you have full and sufficient public hearings to give everyone a say and will you pledge today that you will wait until the March 3 referenda are over before making your megacity bill into law?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, let's be very clear: Metropolitan Toronto will be the same size before this bill as it is after. There will not be one citizen more, not one citizen less. It will be exactly the same size. There are some 2.2 million people in Metropolitan Toronto now and there will be 2.2 million people in Metropolitan Toronto after, so it will be the same size. What will change is that instead of seven levels of government, there will be one. There will be fewer politicians, there will be fewer bureaucrats, so we can have more dollars go to services.

With regard to the specific request, of course we'd be delighted to ensure full public hearings; we'd be delighted to accede to all the requests you've outlined today.

Mr McGuinty: Just so I'm very clear on this, the Premier has just told us that he's in full agreement with public hearings that are going to be full enough, long enough and sufficient enough to allow all to have their say, and second, he had indicated that this Bill 103 will not be made law until the referenda results are in and have been fully considered.

I just want to make sure that's perfectly clear and I will make sure, Premier, by asking you once more if I've got this straight: Is that what we're talking about here? You're going to wait until the referenda results are in and you've given them their due consideration, and you're going to ensure that we have full, sufficient and adequate public hearings to allow all interested in this to have their say?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me be very clear. I said yes in answer to your first question and I'll say yes now. Now, I want to say this: There will be some who will be opposed, who will think you should have five years of hearings. There will be some who will think that until you've talked to all 2.2 million to ensure that you can't possibly make the changes so taxpayers can get the massive savings due to them next year -- that they want that.

But will we provide for full and adequate and representative hearings that make sure all viewpoints are heard, in addition to all the hearings that have taken place, in addition to all the consultations, in addition to everything else, and do I expect that this law will be passed before any PIN number or phone call or whatever forms of consultation will take place, no, I don't think it will be. I think all that information will be before us.

Mr McGuinty: I had the opportunity to address the crowd last night and one of the things I emphasized to them was that this was a non-partisan issue. We think --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mike said the opposite of what he believes now.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Phillips: Eliminate Metro. That's what you said before the election. Do you think you can get away with that? People will see through that dishonesty.

The Speaker: Order. I heard that. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I'm going to ask you withdraw that; it's out of order.

Mr Phillips: I'll withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, we Liberals think your ideas are wrong-headed, the NDP think your ideas are wrong-headed, and there are many, many Tories who happen to agree.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The members for Nepean and Quinte, please come to order. Opposition members. Thank you. Fort William and Algoma, please come to order. Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation.

Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: I understand the Premier's embarrassment and his reluctance to admit it, but there are many Tories who believe his ideas are wrongheaded when it comes to the megacity. To name but a few: Joyce Trimmer, Mel Lastman, and just yesterday we heard what Gordon Chong had to say. He's a Metro councillor and he's one of the handpicked appointees to the Who Does What panel and he's a lifelong Tory. He said something has gone dreadfully wrong: "I can't believe any political party would try to tear the guts out of Metro."

Premier, why is it that everyone can see what lies ahead except you and your government? Why are you so bent on causing so much damage to Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Harris: Quite frankly, to do nothing or leave the status quo would be the worst for Metropolitan Toronto. You will recall debates that we had before the election. You will recall the studies that said the heart and soul was coming out of Toronto, the doughnut effect, that something had to be done to fix it.

What we are doing is bringing in a much stronger, more prosperous, more vibrant Toronto. This legislation will do away with the waste, will do away with some bureaucracy and will put Toronto in a strong, vibrant position to assume its rightful place as the number one city not just in Canada but indeed, in our view, in all of North America. We have had the courage to do it where others dare not follow.

You put off decision after decision. Liberals put off decisions on market value. New Democrats put off decisions on reforming the tax system. Finally a government and a minister and a party with enough courage to put Toronto back on top comes along and all you naysayers are there saying: "No. We want the status quo."

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask that the members for Sudbury, Windsor-Sandwich, Fort York, Riverdale --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I didn't say anything.

The Speaker: No, you didn't say anything. You yelled a few things but you didn't say anything. If you'd all come to order, I'd appreciate it.

New question, leader of the official opposition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier, to the man formerly known as the Taxfighter, now known as the Taxhider, to the man responsible for what is going to be the largest single property tax increase in our province's history.

Premier, while you were gone they were trying to sell this mega-week kerfuffle as a wash, that it was going to be an equal swap of services. It's turned into nothing more than a trick to dump hundreds of millions of new taxes, new tax dollars, on the backs of hardworking, decent, honest, law-abiding property taxpayers in Ontario. In fact even after your bailout fund is counted in, you're still shortchanging property taxpayers over $1 billion. That's $1 billion in new property taxes. That's a property tax explosion with a nuclear charge.

Premier, how does it feel -- we've got to know this now -- as a Taxfighter to dump over $1 billion of new costs on to the backs of property taxpayers?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Unless the municipalities and those who are elected in the next election are all Liberals and New Democrats, there will be tax cuts in the municipalities. In fact, according to the estimates we have, the changes we are making will allow for up to 10% in property tax reductions by the year 2000.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Harris: The changes we are bringing in are not only long overdue but will allow municipalities, working in partnership with the government, more autonomy and more authority in many areas, along with the new Municipal Act. Quite frankly, we would expect property taxes by the year 2000 to go down on average about 10%. All I can do is tell you --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. It's nearly impossible to hear the answer. I'm asking the members to come to order. I don't want to be standing up here every question, but I'm going to. I can't hear the answers, and I have to.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Speaker.

You speculate, you naysayers, you doomsayers, you purveyors of the status quo $11-billion deficits that were there. But we're prepared to be judged by results. The property taxes and the level of property taxes will be known long before the next election. If you want to stack your five-year record of tax hikes provincially, fee hikes and the offloading that you put on to municipalities, or if the NDP wants to put its five-year record up against our record, we'll be very happy to do that, come the next election.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Defend Peterson, Dalton. You love him.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau come to order, please.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier finds great comfort in talking about the past, but I want to talk about the future. Your lines are already dated. Nobody buys this; nobody believes this. We all understand that the net consequence, the net effect of mega-week is $1 billion which are going to be downloading on to property taxpayers right across Ontario. This understanding comes despite your attempt, through television advertising and radio advertising, to confuse us and to confuse the public out there.

We know you're shortchanging municipalities by more than $1 billion. Everyone knows there's going to be a property tax explosion, and let me promise you, the shock waves from that explosion will rattle your party to its very foundation. What the Premier unleashed last week is going to come back to haunt him. When those chickens come home to roost, they're going to be coming home with a vengeance.

I ask the Premier, if you're so confident that the tax experts, people like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, are wrong, why are you --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: We've released the information on what programs cost today. We are also releasing expectations of what they should cost in the future. Some will go up, some will go down. But clearly, to achieve 10% or 15% or 20% property tax reductions, which may be possible, additional savings would have to be found. We would expect, on average, 10% by the year 2000, using best practices. But it may be possible that there will be municipalities that will elect too many Liberal and NDP members and maybe their taxes will only go down 2% or 3%.

We can't predict it all, you see, but we have great confidence in our municipal partners and in our school board partners that we'll be working with that we will deliver far better services, far better quality education and far better municipal services at less cost. That is our track record to date and we expect it will continue in the future.

Mr McGuinty: It's very convenient that the benefits that are going to accrue from mega-week won't be felt, won't be experienced by Ontario taxpayers unless and until they re-elect the Premier and his cohorts at the time of the next election.

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, ask the board of trade, and they're going to tell you the same thing: Your $1-billion tax gap is going to lead to a property tax explosion right across the province.

The figures are starting to come in. Let's listen: Because of your dumping, property taxpayers in Hamilton are faced with an additional $69 million in costs. That works out to $325 for every household. Because of your dumping, London is facing an increase of between 17% and 18% in property taxes, Metro $378 million, Thunder Bay $15 million, Ottawa $81 million, Prescott-Russell $23 million.

Why don't you just admit that you've got a billion-dollar gap here? Why don't you just admit that as a Premier who promised not to raise property taxes you're in fact raising them by a billion dollars?

Hon Mr Harris: I have heard municipalities before lobby for more money and talk about initial budget allocations, even though now we're talking a full year down the road.

I can assure you that there is nothing in what we have announced that should cause taxes to go up and there is everything in what we have announced to allow property taxes to go down.

I can assure you of this: This government is not going to stand by and see any reduction in services to the public, in any social services, in any health services, in any of the programs, in any of the hard services, nor is this government, working in concert with our partners, going to tolerate tax increases, the kind you guys had for the 10 years of the lost decade. You can count on that.

PUBLIC SECTOR LAYOFFS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You are charging Ontario taxpayers millions of dollars to run your television ads that tell everybody, "Don't worry, be happy." Your Minister of Municipal Affairs has been trying to say that your downloading of health care, social assistance, transportation, policing and libraries will be a wash, that jobs won't be lost, health and community services won't be cut and he says property taxes won't rise.

But then this morning in a scrum, you said to the press that "some of Ryan's employees" will lose their jobs, that there will be fewer public servants, fewer CUPE members; they will lose their jobs. Premier, can you explain that? How many people are going to lose their jobs in this scenario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, I can't give you the exact number, because a lot of these employees work for other employers: municipalities or school boards. But when you have seven municipalities in Metro Toronto serving 2.2 million people and you change to one level of government serving 2.2 million people, we would expect there would be fewer public servants. In fact, we campaigned saying there'd be fewer public servants. The net result of this will be fewer government employees.

Clearly, with an $11-billion deficit and high property taxes, we cannot sustain all the government employees you two parties racked up over 10 years, so we've been very upfront, we've been very straightforward. We expect to find savings in the numbers of government employees in school boards and municipalities and in the province of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: As I say, a whole bunch of things, a whole bunch of costly things, are being pushed down on to municipalities. These are all important services, so I want to ask the Premier this: Let's be a little clearer. Who exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about those hardworking people who work in municipal homes for the aged or municipal nursing homes and look after our parents and our grandparents? Are you talking about getting rid of them? Are you talking about getting rid of the people who plow the streets and maintain our streets?

Are you talking about the people who work in our libraries so that our children are encouraged to read and have an opportunity to read? Are you talking about people who do important public works?

Premier, I think you owe it to people. We know that you're pushing down billions of dollars of costs on to municipalities, and we know that municipalities will either have to raise their property taxes substantially, they will have to cut services or they will have to get rid of a whole bunch of a jobs, or perhaps a combination of all three. I think you owe it to people to be honest. Which of these people and how many of these people are going to lose their jobs?

Hon Mr Harris: There are seven CEOs right now in Toronto. After this bill, there will be one.

Mr Hampton: I can see the Premier is trying hard to confuse the issue. The CEOs are not CUPE members. In fact, if you want to confine it to your megacity concept, everybody who looks at it says that it's going to add more middle managers; it's going to add more nameless, faceless bureaucrats. People from the United States who have done this say that. People who have looked at Halifax-Dartmouth say that.

Can you tell us, Premier, how many people there are you going to put on the unemployment roll, and can you tell us how that's going to affect the education of our children?

Hon Mr Harris: Let's be clear. What we are taking off the property taxpayer by the year 2000 is over $6 billion in education taxes, given where education is going. What we are asking municipalities to pick up is about the same. So if they don't want to cut taxes, if they don't want to find any savings, then there will be no tax increases. On the other hand, if they want to find efficiencies, we believe that there can be some reduction.

You ask about schools: Where are the savings? There will be two thirds fewer trustees, politicians. There will be two thirds fewer trustee supports. There will be half the directors of education. There will be half the directors of finance, half the directors of personnel, half the business superintendents, half the accounts payable clerks, half the accounts receivable clerks, half the human resources department, half the administration support, half the curriculum officers, half the office space and half the office equipment required, plus efficiencies in purchasing, transportation and other areas.

With all those savings, we'll have a lot better education with dollars going into the classroom than we had under your administration.

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

Mr Hampton: My next question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I would say to the Premier, you have tried to avoid the question. You said it was going to be CUPE members, people who provide the basic services out there in the community, people who look after those homes for the aged, and I would say to you again, you're trying to miss the point.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Could you please inform all of us in the House today what is your understanding of the difference between market value assessment and actual value assessment? Could you please tell us what the difference is?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the member knows, both are value-based assessment processes, but there is a substantial difference between actual value assessment and market value assessment. Many of the details I would be glad to provide to the member. The system is a current value system and works on a rolling three-year average, which takes a lot of the volatility out of the system.

The other thing is that it's a very fair and equitable system. It's a system that's going to stop the bleeding in Metro Toronto, where these previous governments have allowed the property tax system to go into disarray, costing the municipality of Metro Toronto $100 million a year. You had the opportunity to fix it; you blew it. You didn't have the guts to do it. We have. We are going to bring fairness and equity back into the tax system.

Mr Hampton: Here's a bit of the history, and you should know this: The Golden report says the difference is that actual value assessment is like market value assessment in that it ascribes a value to each property, but it is administered differently in that property values are determined by applying weighting factors that reflect property characteristics. In other words, actual value assessment adjusts for things like size of the property, size of the house, and adds an element of fairness to a market-based system.

When we look through your press releases, Minister, and when we look through the briefing notes provided by Ministry of Finance officials, we can't find any of these things that distinguish between actual value and market value. In fact, here in this House yesterday you basically equated market value and actual value. I'll ask you again: Since none of the distinguishing things are present in your scheme, isn't your scheme really market value?

Hon Mr Leach: No, it's not market value; it's the Ontario fair value assessment system. There are substantial differences. It is a system that is going to bring fairness to the property tax system. It's going to have everybody paying their fair share; no more free rides. People who have not been paying their fair share for many years are going to have to do it, and the thousands and thousands of people in Metro Toronto who are paying more than their fair share will get a reduction in taxes.

Mr Hampton: The minister can use all the rhetoric he wants. This is the briefing note from the Ministry of Finance and it says, "Assessments will be based on what properties are sold for." That's market value. I would say to the minister, if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck. This is market value you're trying to push on people. There is no provision in your legislation for an assessment system which takes into account property characteristics; none of those things. Market value under your reform does not allow for the stabilizing influence of an actual value assessment system.

How do you explain this -- this is Al Leach during the election -- "My party and I will never support the imposition of MVA in Metro Toronto," yet when we look at the characteristics of what you're imposing on people, it is exactly MVA. When people questioned you about the figures yesterday, you referred to the MVA figures and said: "Go look at that. That will tell you how much it costs." Tell us: Who was telling the truth, Al Leach today, when we know it's now market value, or Al Leach in 1995, during the election?

Hon Mr Leach: This is not market value assessment and the member knows it very well. The Ontario fair assessment system is based on current use, not highest and best use. It's a system, again, that is going to bring fairness back into the system and correct the most messed-up assessment system this country has ever seen. You're worried about expenses in Metro? Here's one solution that's immediately going to correct a $100-million problem.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Quack, quack.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Quack, quack.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I never thought there would be the day when I'd rule "quack" out of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Okay. New question, the member for Oakwood.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the Premier: Anne Golden who authored the Golden report, the board of trade -- your friends -- Conservative Metro Councillor Gordon Chong, even people from the taxpayers' federation are saying that you are destroying the economic viability of Metro by jamming this megacity down the throats of its citizens, and on top of that you're dumping welfare and subsidized housing on Metro. The people are saying, "What do we need a provincial government for?" In fact some of them are even saying, "Maybe we should secede from the province." Premier, is that what you want to create in Metro, another Quebec situation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me respond to some of the rhetoric about taking 2.2 million people currently in Metro Toronto, governed by seven governments, down to one government. Gordon Chong is very supportive of that; so is the Metro board of trade; so is the taxpayers' coalition. Given the veracity of your facts in the

preamble, your question is really irrelevant.

Mr Colle: The Premier is wrong, as he is on the $1 billion. Paul Pagnuelo says this megacity proposal is utter madness and is going to increase property taxes, so I'd like to correct that record.

Premier, do you realize what you're doing to the gap in property taxes between the 905 and the 416 as a result of your megacity proposal and your dumping on Metro welfare? Even the Globe and Mail, a very conservative paper, says that your plan for megacity dumping is fatally flawed. People are asking, do you really know what you're doing?

Hon Mr Harris: I read an editorial in the Globe today that was 100% supportive of everything we're doing.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, the member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Premier as well. I'd just say to the Premier that as he gets briefed and brought up to date, he'll discover that a lot of his former friends don't agree with what he's doing on the megacity. My question to him is exactly on that.

One of the reasons they don't agree and one of the reasons we have so many citizens concerned about what you're doing, one of the reasons we saw 1,500 people at a meeting last night in Metropolitan Toronto is not just because of the democratic process that you're trampling on -- that's a major issue in and of itself -- but it's also because when they recall back, they see a Mike Harris who runs around the province vaunting the fact that he's the man who keeps his promises.

Then they look at the promise you made with respect to Metropolitan Toronto. When you endorsed the report of another one of your ex-political friends, Joyce Trimmer, do you remember the one that said that yes, you were going to make changes in Metropolitan Toronto, but you would maintain the lower-tier municipalities? Now you're doing completely the opposite. That's why people are upset.

What do you say, Premier? As a man who keeps his promises, how do you justify what you're doing?

Hon Mr Harris: What we have done is scrapped Metro government and we have one lower-tier municipality in Toronto.

Mr Silipo: We'll look forward to how this Premier and his ministers continue to explain that position, which is diametrically opposed to what was said in the report he endorsed, which envisioned very clearly the maintenance of lower-tier municipalities in Metro Toronto. Yes, it talked about abolishing the Metro level of government, but it talked very clearly about maintaining local municipalities. In fact, it envisioned the responsibility for the delivery of some of these services moved to the local level and others moved out beyond.

But it envisioned very clearly, Premier, and you can't cut it both ways, maintaining local municipalities in Metro Toronto. You couldn't have been clearer about that.

When people look at that, they now see a Premier of the province who is not keeping his promise. They see a Premier of the province who is reneging 180 degrees on that basic promise, and that's why they want to make sure not only that there is a public process of hearings that go beyond March 3 but that you will actually listen and be affected by the things you will hear in them. Premier, will you ensure that this process takes place?

Hon Mr Harris: Here are the eight recommendations of the Trimmer task force report:

"

(1) There is too much government.

"

(2) The current two-level system of government is too expensive, too bureaucratic and too unaccountable.

"

(3) The government closest to the people is considered the most responsive, efficient and accountable.

"

(4) Political boundaries often act as impediments to effective, efficient delivery of service.

"

(5) Broader regional coordination for transportation is essential.

"

(6) Unfairness in the property tax system is broadly acknowledged and in need of immediate attention" -- something you guys are opposing.

"

(7) In order to achieve greater efficiencies, local government should encourage more private-public partnerships.

"

(8) There is high value placed on local communities and the sense of belonging which a strong community engenders. Policies must be designed to protect and preserve the uniqueness of neighbourhoods."

We've followed through on all eight.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent that you give the Premier more time so he can read the paragraph that starts, "As you will note, these observations" are where the real answer lies, and he omitted from that --

Interjections: Agreed.

The Speaker: You know, I haven't even asked yet. The member for Dovercourt wishes unanimous consent so the Premier can read from that section. Agreed? No. It wasn't agreed.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors issues. Many seniors in my riding of Wentworth East have in the past expressed concern about rising auto insurance rates. Hardest hit, of course, have been seniors on fixed incomes. I'm wondering if the minister could let the House know how those concerns have been addressed through this summer's passage of Bill 59, the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank my colleague for the question and indicate that when this government brought in Bill 59 it was aware that in the previous decade, when the provincial Parliament attempted to restore some stability to auto rates, our seniors seemed to be particularly hard hit. We designed the plan in this legislation to ensure that we restored good rates for good driving records and restored fairness, balance and stability into the system, and seniors have been the primary beneficiaries of this new legislation.

Since November 1, I'm pleased to report, insurance companies must province a discount if they are approached by a retired senior or someone on a fixed income, and there are real bargains out there for people if they'll call their insurance companies. In fact, statistics have shown that two thirds of companies out there are offering a 5% discount, a third of them are offering between 5% and 10% and there are eight companies offering discounts of greater than 10% for Ontario seniors.

Mr Doyle: Mr Speaker, many seniors in my riding are familiar with many high costs, such as particularly high education taxes and so on. I'd like to ask the minister if he could give a real example of a senior who is currently experiencing some new savings, because this is a government that is listening.

Hon Mr Jackson: I'd like to report that even members in opposition have shared with me that their seniors have approached them and advised them of these savings, which they appreciate, and that they share in the credit because it was a bill that passed in this Parliament.

I was talking to one of my constituents, Bill Carlton, who's been retired, from Burlington. He and his wife own two cars, $1,700 was his insurance, he's had a $200 discount and he is quite pleased. He's one of many success stories in discounts. Bill Carlton, a senior, has stated publicly, "I'm pleased with the direction this government is moving in," not only with his insurance rates, but with cleaning up all the waste in government.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. It has to do with the impact on residential property taxpayers of all the various moves your government is making, and I will say that in our opinion it is offloading in the most dramatic way on property taxes.

I want to focus on one specific issue: the business occupancy tax. We have been told here in Metropolitan Toronto that the elimination of the business occupancy tax is a $650-million hit on the revenue for our municipalities of Metro Toronto -- 15% of their revenue gone. I gather that your government is saying: "Tough luck. Replace it by increasing property tax on other things."

What does your government expect municipalities to do to recover the $650 million? Will that be put on business property tax or the residential property tax?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Finance has a few of those --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): To the member, municipalities have the ability in the legislation to choose to make up the lost revenue in business occupancy tax by spreading it among the same category of taxpayer, among other classes of taxpayers, provided they don't raise the disparity in the rate between, for example, commercial property taxes and residential property taxes.

Mr Phillips: The answer we just got is very clear, then, to people in Metro Toronto: $650 million in revenue -- gone. That was municipal revenue. The province took the credit for it, eliminated it, but it's all municipal revenue. The minister just said that a portion of it will have to go on the residential property taxpayer in Metro Toronto.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): No, he didn't. He said no such thing.

Mr Phillips: The people in the province should understand that the Minister of Community and Social Services, who has offloaded social assistance, child care and long-term care, is barracking and yelling when we are trying to point out that they are offloading on the residential property taxpayer.

I will say to the Minister of Finance once again, you have said in your answer that local municipalities cannot increase the proportion on business. By definition, then, a portion of this has to go on the residential property taxpayers. So you have cut out $650 million and you are loading more and more on the residential property taxpayer. How much of that $650 million do you think will go on the residential taxpayer?

Hon Mr Eves: That is not what I said. Who does the member think are paying business occupancy taxes today? Businesses. Now the municipality will have the choice of taking that portion and putting it on the commercial property tax if they so choose. However, Ontario, after consultation with the municipalities -- AMO, ROMA, FONOM -- is going to establish ranges of acceptability between --

Mr Phillips: They can't put it all on the property taxpayer.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Now, just a minute. Excuse me. I say to the honourable members that if they have any small business people in their constituencies whatsoever, they might want to start to think about them.

Mr Phillips: I have a lot more residential property taxpayers and I am thinking about them right now.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the residential property taxpayers in his riding, as he acknowledged in 1990, are going to get a tax break under this legislation.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's a new definition for new math. You don't need a calculator to figure out that new math.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): You didn't have the guts to do that either, Elinor.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole and the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, if you have a conversation, there are lots of other places.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood.

Mrs Caplan: Well, so much for revenue-neutral. Out the window, right on the backs of taxpayers.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, please. Thank you.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): She's right, though.

The Speaker: Well, somehow that doesn't shock me that you think that. I still have to move on. The member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The member for Scarborough-Agincourt preaches for his parish and talks about the impact of the business occupancy tax where he lives, to the tune of $650 million. Let's enlarge the picture and face the reality that we're talking about $1.6 billion at the provincial level. This is a tax that has been removed, a revenue from the municipalities at present, through the business occupancy tax.

Minister, you established a rate of a 30% levy on small retail businesses. If you're the Royal Bank in downtown Toronto, if you're the biggie, you pay your share, you pay 75%. You can't have it eight different ways. Who's going to pay for the difference? Who's going to pick up the slack? Who will pick up the $1.6 billion, which is massive, because you have given a gift to your friends on Bay Street? You've been consistent on the back of small businesses. Who's going to make up the slack? Tell me, Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: To the honourable member, municipalities all across the province are going to have the ability to make the decision whether they ask commercial taxpayers --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: No. Excuse me. Businesses are already paying --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: Businesses will be paying if municipalities choose to have commercial-assessed properties pick up the difference. Municipalities will also have the ability -- he talks about banks etc -- to establish two different rates of taxation for commercial properties, one for small businesses, one for larger businesses, therefore answering your bank question.

Mr Pouliot: The minister is absolutely right: It's not that easy. What you're saying is that it's always better to have someone else die for their country than yourselves. You've downloaded. You see, the trick here, the downfall, is that there is limitation: You cannot place relative burdens among different classes of property. It's a devil's choice, nothing short of that.

Because of the regulations, because of the limitations, municipalities are negotiating and will be forced to levy with both hands behind their back. Who is going to pay the residential levy: property owners in Ontario or small business? It has to be one of the two. Pick one.

Hon Mr Eves: Yes, somebody is going to have to pay. Somebody is paying now. Somebody has been paying since 1904. This will be a far more equitable system for small businesses in Ontario than the antiquated system of business occupancy tax that's been in place since 1904, and municipal representatives will be able to make the appropriate choice for their community. Some communities are fortunate enough to have a lot of commercial and industrial assessment, and some, like mine, are not.

SALT CONTAMINATION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As the minister will know, in my riding a number of my constituents have road salt problems. Some of them have salt contamination in their wells that are adjacent to roads; some of them are not adjacent to roads. Can you advise the House, Minister, just what your ministry is doing to make sure that MTO operations are not the prime cause of salt contamination?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I'd like to thank the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay for the question. The issue of salt contamination is of great concern to my ministry, and for that reason my parliamentary assistant, the member for Oshawa, has been visiting some of these problem areas.

We are currently engaged in a number of initiatives to limit contamination. Ministry of Transportation staff are now using more effective application-of-salt techniques. These initiatives are possible during winter maintenance operations through improved equipment and training of people, and also the new techniques I mentioned. We have also incorporated a design measure, such as lining ditches in particular problem areas, to prevent and reduce the salt from actually entering the earth. We will continue to explore whatever other possibilities we might have.

Mr Grimmett: It's good to see that your ministry is taking action to prevent this type of contamination from occurring in the future. Many of my constituents, however, want to know what you're doing for the people whose drinking water is contaminated now. Will you tell the House what action your ministry is taking to ensure that these people have access to clean drinking water?

Hon Mr Palladini: The Ministry of Transportation deals with the issues of soil contamination on an individual, claim-by-claim basis. MTO will provide and pay for a groundwater expert to come in to investigate the damage, particularly to the drinking water supply. If it is determined that MTO road salt is responsible for the contamination, we will accept liability and provide assistance to the claimant. Depending on the situation, my ministry will provide bottled drinking water; we might pay for drilling of a new well or we might replace damaged plumbing. But this government will stand behind Ontarians in making sure they will be protected from any salt contamination.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday afternoon Thunder Bay resident Veronica Manuel addressed the standing committee on social development regarding her severely disabled son, Dylan. Veronica told a harrowing story of the extreme measures she has had to take to keep her son at home despite the government's actions, including reducing her social assistance, imposing user fees for all the prescription drugs Dylan needs and indeed ignoring all her letters to you and to your ministers.

Premier, your own committee members were deeply shocked by Veronica's story, and now you're dumping the responsibility for Veronica and Dylan, as well as a half-million other children in this province, on to residential taxpayers.

My question is simply this: What will you say to Veronica if your deep cuts and out-of-control policies force her to give up her child?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister has some information on that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Health?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr Speaker, I believe it was referred to me.

The Speaker: Premier, I know you said "the minister." I don't know which minister you're referring it to.

Hon Mr Harris: I know they all care, but the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the very eloquent case this particular individual made to the committee yesterday. She has sacrificed considerably to take care of her child at home, and I think her case, more than anything, demonstrates why we need to improve the system to support families like that who care for their children at home. That's one of the reasons we were able to find $15 million in additional money to try and support women such as herself who need that support at home.

The other thing I would like to remind the honourable member of is that, no, we have not ignored the letters from this particular individual. We have met with this individual and her family on many occasions to try and sort out and put the supports in place. We will continue to do that.

The final point is that we are not dumping these programs or these services anywhere. The province takes them very seriously. We are continuing to exercise our responsibility to fund and support these families.

Mr Gravelle: One doesn't know where to begin to respond to that, Minister, for God's sake. We managed to get a meeting with one of your assistants -- no response to that meeting with one of your assistants.

You cannot deny that dumping on municipalities is taking place and that is simply going to cause a tax explosion in many of our communities. Thunder Bay city council was told last night that your dumping will add $15 million to the operating costs in Thunder Bay, which will potentially force a 20% increase in property taxes.

Our community in Thunder Bay is sufficiently desperate that they are now investigating a legal challenge to your out-of-control policies. This brutal hatchet job is going to put municipalities in a very difficult position and the dumping is going to force them to make some excruciating decisions. The minister cannot simply waffle out of this one.

Minister, in that the Premier won't respond -- and I will also say that it's not just your ministry that affects Veronica and some of the others. What we really need to know is, why don't you care? Why does the government not care what happens to our seniors and our children and to people like Veronica and Dylan? Please, please answer.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate the sincerity of the member opposite in trying to help many of the individuals who are trying to care for their children at home. That is one of the reasons we actually had additional money two weeks ago to try to support families who are caring for children at home.

I would like to remind the honourable member that the municipal level of government is one of the reasons the social support system in this province is as good as it is. They are part of the delivery system. They have been our partners in funding. They can continue to do that. We have additional supports in place to make sure those municipalities can live up to their responsibilities. We've improved their situation by taking the education costs off the back of the property taxpayer so they'll be able to afford these responsibilities.

We have not walked away from these programs. They are extremely important. There are many folks who depend on them, and that's why we think we are going to continue to improve the way they are delivered.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour regarding the investigation into the tragic deaths of two steelworkers at Dofasco in Hamilton last week. My office was told just a few hours ago by officials of the United Steelworkers of America, which indeed represents those two workers, that their union is being stonewalled in this investigation. The certified worker, certified as a health and safety expert by the government of Ontario, has not been allowed to inspect the scene of the fatal accident. As you know, this is a right that's guaranteed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, subsection 8(14).

The Steelworkers were told by Dofasco, and I quote: "It's our property and our responsibility." Also, the union's representative has not been allowed to participate formally in the investigation. Minister, why is this happening and what are you going to do to stop it?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): As you know, the ministry is fully involved in this investigation, and I shall certainly take those issues under advisement and report back to you.

Mr Christopherson: I would hope the minister would ensure that that report back would include a response here in the House, because it's the public and workers in the public who are very concerned about this issue. I hope you'll respond in that fashion: here in the House.

My supplementary question is this: You can now appreciate, with this sort of thing happening in the province, the absolute need to strengthen the role of health and safety committees in the province and in the workplace, to strengthen the role of the certified worker, to strengthen the role of the committees and to ensure that all the legislation is strengthened, not weakened.

Everything we've heard from your government in terms of changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act says that you're going to deregulate responsibility back to the employer, that you're going to weaken the responsibility of committees, that you're going to weaken the role of the certified worker. Minister, I want your absolute assurance today that you will not do one thing that weakens the right of those committees and those certified health and safety workers in the workplace, and I want you to do it now.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's unfortunate that the information you're receiving is so very wrong. As you know, I have repeatedly said in this House that our objective is to have among the safest workplaces those in the province of Ontario. That's why we are completely reviewing the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

We will be taking a look at the role of the committees, we will be taking a look at the role of the workplace parties and we will be building on the internal responsibility system, which means the workplace parties will assume the responsibility for identifying hazards and making sure those workplaces are safe. This is a very significant step forward and it's one our government is going to do. We will have the safest workplaces.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that the following substitution be made to the membership of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Clement be substituted for Mr O'Toole.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Does the motion carry? Carried.

Hon David Johnson: I move the following changes on the standing committee on administration of justice: Mr Chiarelli, Mr Crozier, Mr Ramsay --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I don't have a copy of that, Dave. I wasn't told about that; no agreement on that. I only have the first one.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, if I might make a note to the whip from the third party, I have just received a copy from the official opposition. These are all changes to deal with the official opposition. None of them are changes to deal with the government. If the official opposition has a list --

The Speaker: Just read the motion. Let's get on with it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You do have time. Why don't you just discuss it?

Okay. More motions, government House leader? No more motions?

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A timely petition from the people of St Catharines to the government of Ontario:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this particular petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is attacking workers' compensation benefits and the rights of injured workers; and

"Whereas Tory plans include taking $15 billion from injured workers and giving $6 billion to employers, including the government's rich corporate friends; and

"Whereas Cam Jackson, the former Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for gutting the WCB, refused to hold public hearings, choosing to meet secretly with business and insurance industry representatives; and

"Whereas the WCB has about $7.6 billion in assets and its unfunded liability has been steadily shrinking; and

"Whereas the Jackson report and WCB legislation are just part of a coordinated attack on occupational health and safety protections for working families in Ontario; and

"Whereas Tory plans also include abolition of the internationally respected Occupational Disease Panel; and

"Whereas the government needs to hear the message that taking money from injured workers and lowering incentives for employers to make workplaces safer is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on WCB reform; to listen to the voice of the people calling for improved occupational health and safety protection; and to tell the Tory government to call off its attack on the dignity and standard of living of injured workers and their families."

This is signed by residents of Sudbury East. I agree with the petitioners and I have affixed my signature to it.

ST MARYS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition from the community action committee for St Marys Memorial Hospital.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Health:

"Whereas St Marys Memorial Hospital is critically important to the St Marys area from both health and economic perspectives,

"We petition to support the continuation of St Marys Memorial Hospital with active chronic beds and 24-hour emergency services to effectively serve the St Marys and area community."

It's signed on nine pages, about 30 on a page.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature and to the Honourable Robert Runciman, Solicitor General.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Therefore, since a therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison, we urge the government to save the victims and money by keeping what works."

I'm proud to affix my signature.

LAKE HURON FISHERY

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I'd like to present a petition on behalf of some of the constituents within the riding of Bruce, and it reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government's objective for fisheries on Lake Huron is to manage the aquatic resources of Lake Huron to ensure the long-term sustainability of a healthy ecosystem; and

"Whereas the attainment of this objective is based on the preservation and restoration of habitat and the control of exploitation of fish populations; and

"Whereas dedicated conservationists from the Ministry of Natural Resources have worked hard for many decades towards the achievement of this goal; and

"Whereas the fishery on Lake Huron rebounded from the demise of several decades ago to a relatively healthy fishery producing millions of dollars annually to the Ontario economy; and

"Whereas the rehabilitation and management of this important fishery is in jeopardy due to uncontrolled aboriginal commercial fishing; and

"Whereas negotiations to resolve this issue have been largely ineffective,

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

"That the Ontario government immediately resolve the fisheries management crisis on Lake Huron and ensure conservation of the fishery."

I will be pleased to affix my name to this petition.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

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

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industry; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that Solicitor General Bob Runciman, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industry, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition as I agree with it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Ontario Federation of Labour to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris government has begun a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while at work and allow us to return home to our families in the same condition in which we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear that they intend to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the legislation."

Given the events recently in Hamilton, I wholeheartedly support this petition.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm presenting this petition concerning the spring bear hunt on behalf of the Honourable Bob Runciman. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas about 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals hunted over bait;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

This petition is signed by people from various parts of the province.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Harris government has enacted a variety of policies which will negatively affect the rights of Ontario's workers; and

"Whereas the proposed elimination of protections contained within the Employment Standards Act will further erode the basic protection afforded to working people in this province;

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

"That the government of Ontario reverse the unfair practices that have resulted in reduced protection and support for workers in this province and, in particular, that the proposed changes to the Employment Standards Act be withdrawn."

I support the petitioners and I will affix my signature to the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A further petition regarding occupational health and safety and its importance in the province of Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I add my name in support of this cause.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): Before reading this petition, I'd like to pre-empt it by saying that this was dated prior to the arrival of the new Minister of Health and therefore reads to the past minister's name. It's a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Health, has announced an 18% reduction to the health system which would result in major cuts to hospital services, reductions in medical/surgical beds and possible closures of hospitals; and

"Whereas the future of the hospitals within Huron county are currently under review by the Huron-Perth District Health Council; and

"Whereas many residents of Bruce county are served by Wingham and District Hospital and would be directly impacted by the decisions of the Huron-Perth District Health Council,

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

"Whereas the citizens of Bruce county realize there are to be cuts and reductions to health care; and

"Whereas restructuring and financial responsibility can be accomplished without direct hospital closures,

"Be it hereby resolved that the citizens of Teeswater and Culross township care about their hospitals and hereby implore the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Health, to give every consideration to ensure that the reductions to health care not result in the closure of any hospital in our area."

I affix my name to the top.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

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

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is considering the privatization of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario,

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

"That the Liquor Control Board of Ontario remain a crown corporation because we fear that the privatization of that organization will lead to increases in crime, drunk driving, alcohol abuse and its health costs as well as loss of control over availability to minors and quality of product."

I affix my name to this petition as I agree with it.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the United Paperworkers International Union, Local 665, in Terrace Bay.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is rolling back the clock on workers' health and safety and occupational disease; and

"Whereas before the Occupational Disease Panel was established the Workers' Compensation Board dragged its feet for decades in acknowledging evidence that work was responsible for many diseases; and

"Whereas the independent Occupational Disease Panel's work is respected internationally; and

"Whereas a leaked cabinet document shows that Labour Minister Elizabeth Witmer is planning to abolish the Occupational Disease Panel, ending this independent voice and giving the responsibility back to the WCB; and

"Whereas the government needs to hear from the people of Ontario that taking money away from workers with occupational diseases is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on WCB reform; to listen to the voice of the people calling for preservation of the Occupational Disease Panel; and to tell the Tory government to call off its attack on the dignity and standard of living of injured workers and their families."

I add my name to theirs in support of this cause.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SCHOOL CLASS SIZES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA TAILLE DES CLASSES SCOLAIRES

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

An Act respecting the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a school class / Projet de loi 110, Loi concernant le nombre d'élèves pouvant être inscrits dans une classe scolaire.

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

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

Those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Come to order. Would you like to give an explanation?

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to thank the assembly for accepting first reading of a private member's bill, which is by all accounts customary. Certainly we know there's a backbencher in the government side who has trouble understanding that. But this act is entitled the School Class Sizes Act and this bill limits the number of pupils who may be enrolled in any class in any school anywhere in Ontario.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Snobelen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 104,

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

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

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, Ontarians have long understood the importance of education to the wellbeing of this province. It's a passport to opportunity for the individual student growing up in a rapidly changing world and it's a vital factor in determining how well Ontario will succeed in an increasingly complex and competitive global economy.

Last year alone, Ontarians spent more than $13 billion on elementary and secondary school education. Taxpayers have always demanded accountability in public spending. They want reassurance that their tax dollars are being used wisely and that they are getting the best possible return on that investment.

As I noted on Monday, this is not a new issue. In fact, some 150 years ago the citizens of Toronto were already raising doubts about the rising costs of education and how effectively their tax dollars were being spent.

Today I'm delighted to open debate on second reading of the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, which will respond to these long-standing concerns. The legislation we're debating today is part of a comprehensive package of government reforms that have been announced this week. Through it, we are going to streamline the way education in Ontario is financed and governed. As a result, residential property taxpayers will no longer be required to bear the costs of education. I am sure this will be a great relief to residential property taxpayers, particularly senior citizens, who for too long have been singled out to carry the burden of funding education through their property taxes.

Over the last 10 years, school boards have increased residential property taxes by an average of 5% in each and every year. If these trends continued, residential property taxpayers would be paying $6.2 billion more for education by the year 2000. Effective 1998, these funds will be provided through provincial grants, not through residential property taxes.

The public is becoming more and more critical of school boards that have demonstrated little control over their spending habits. In the period between 1985 and 1995, for example, total student enrolment rose by some 16%, while board spending increased by 82%. During that same period, residential property owners saw the educational component of their residential taxes jump by more than 120%.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is a very important bill and the government has not kept quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: This is a very important bill and I'm glad we do have quorum.

As I was saying, during the period that I've mentioned, residential property taxpayers in the province watched their taxes jump by 120%. In 1996, 78% of Ontario's school boards, rather than trimming their budgets to find a 1.8% efficiency, chose instead to increase residential property taxes; 29 of those boards increased property taxes by more than 3%.

Taxpayers are also questioning what they're getting in return for an ever-increasing tax bill. Many people point to the elaborate administrative centres that school boards have built as an all-too-visible reminder of a system that has little or no public accountability. In my riding, for example, two of these monuments to school board spending face each other across a single intersection. Some of these board buildings have opulent adornments, including waterfall walls and terrazzo floors. One board that I know of also has an ownership interest in a golf course.

Residential taxpayers can't afford and shouldn't be expected to pay for these questionable costs that are routinely demanded by school boards.

The government is committed to putting an end to this practice. We will require that business taxes continue to support effective and accountable funding of the education system. But I want to make it clear that we have rejected the idea of pooling. These taxes will remain in the community from which they were generated. Beginning in 1998, municipalities will collect this money and then forward it to the local school boards.

These reforms are based on extensive consultation with the people of this province that has involved 24 separate reviews on finance and governance since 1950, including royal commissions, committees, fact-finding reports, panels and innumerable meetings. Each time parents have expressed their concerns about the quality of their children's education and the way in which education dollars are being spent. They say they can't get straight answers on their children's education.

It's time to take action. Through the Fewer School Boards Act we are moving forward with the much-needed reform of the education system. We are streamlining the structure of the system and refocusing resources on the classroom, where they belong.

According to the report on school board spending, 1995-96, which I released earlier this month, there are significant discrepancies in how boards spend their resources. Some devote up to 73% to the classroom, others as little as 51%. This report found that on average, for every dollar spent on the classroom, more than 80 cents was spent outside the classroom. Clearly this situation cannot continue if we are going to give every student in this province an opportunity to excel. Non-classroom spending must be reduced in order to maximize the resources that are focused on our classrooms.

Through the Fewer School Boards Act we will be streamlining the administrative overhead by cutting the number of major school boards in Ontario in half, from about 129 to 66, and replacing them with new district school boards, effective January 1, 1998. Where possible the district boards will follow municipal boundaries. We will be retaining the small, isolate and hospital boards as school authorities.

We are also committed to improving the quality of education at less cost to the taxpayer. To do that we'll develop a new, fair model for distributing funding to ensure a high quality of education that meets all students' individual needs regardless of where they live. The new funding model will be based on work conducted by the Working Group on Education Finance Reform, which was composed of key stakeholders, including representatives of teachers' federations, provincial school boards associations and Metro-area school boards.

Its principles and features have already been presented in the consultation paper, Meeting Students' Needs, that we released in September. We've received tremendous response to this consultation paper and we'll be incorporating that input into our new model.

We'll be releasing a full and detailed proposal for the new funding model later this winter. The model will outline the approach we intend to take and will identify those issues upon which we'd like some advice, but I can assure you the new funding model, because it is based on the needs of students, will help to refocus our resources back in the classroom.

Through this legislation, we are also redefining the role of the school board trustee. We want to restore trustees to their traditional and effective role as guardians of local education. This legislation provides the mechanisms through which we will reduce the number of politicians in education by cutting the number of trustees at major boards from almost 1,900 to approximately 700.

The Metropolitan Toronto district board, due to its size, will have up to 22 trustees. All others in the province will have between five and 12 trustees. The number and geographic distribution of trustees for the individual boards will be based on population and density tables that we will set out in regulation.

The legislation also clarifies who is eligible to serve as a trustee. We want to get away from the situation where those elected to serve on a board are unable to adequately represent their constituents and participate in decision-making on key issues because of potential conflicts of interest. Through this legislation, school board employees and their spouses will no longer be able to serve as a trustee in any school board or school authority in Ontario. Running for office will be permitted only if the employee takes a leave of absence.

In addition, we'll be taking steps to control trustees' salaries. They will no longer be able to take home up to the equivalent of a full-time salary, some more than $49,000 a year. Instead, school boards will have the option to provide an honorarium of up to $5,000.

Finally, to make sure that these reforms take place in an organized and careful way, this legislation will establish a commission that will work with the local community, including trustees, classroom teachers, parents and other stakeholders in the education community to guide the process of change.

These are not revolutionary ideas; in fact governments of all political stripes throughout Canada have already embarked on similar reforms. A report commissioned for the second national consultation on education in 1996 noted that jurisdictions are reforming education by promoting parental involvement in education; reducing the number of school boards, while expanding the use of school councils; renewing curriculum to focus on what students should know or be able to do; providing greater accountability to parents and the general public by instituting assessment tools based on a standard curriculum.

The legislation you have before you is proof that Ontario will no longer sit on the sidelines as others move ahead. Through the Fewer School Boards Act, we are continuing to fulfil the pledge that this government made to parents. We are providing them with the information and opportunities they need to resume their role as full partners in the education of their children. We are giving parents a greater direct voice in education by mandating that each school must have an advisory school council. These councils will have influence on key issues related to the school programs, codes of discipline and feedback on student achievement.

We are publishing annual reports so that parents and taxpayers can monitor and evaluate their school board's performance by seeing clearly where education dollars are being spent. The hallmarks of Ontario's new education system will be high standards and accountability. Our standards will be clear, measurable and comprehensive in all grades, and the new revised curriculum will be the same across the province. Our new curriculum for grades 1 to 9 will be released in the coming months. This rigorous and demanding new curriculum, focusing on language, math, science and technology, is the first stage in building a complete curriculum that provides a solid foundation in the basics.

We have already increased funding on new information technology in the classroom through a $40-million investment in the technology incentive partnership program, which will focus particularly on the early grades.

We have completed consultations on secondary school reform, one of the most ambitious ever on education in this province. More than 20,000 individuals and groups were involved, and their input will form the basis of this government's decisions on the structure and content of secondary schools in the province. The new four-year program will be implemented for students entering grade 9 in September 1998.

We have established the Education Quality and Accountability Office, which will begin regular province-wide testing of students this year, so parents will know whether their child has learned what is expected. Standard report cards will be issued by this fall to allow parents to see clearly how well their child is doing. This year we'll also be publishing our own report card and asking the public and parents to grade our efforts. That's the best way to make this system more accountable.

We are meeting our pledge. The Fewer School Boards Act is an important step in bringing accountability back into the education system, but we are doing more: We are reforming the education system to ensure our children have a solid foundation upon which to build their lives, a foundation upon which Ontario's future prosperity depends. This government's action will ensure that Ontario students will not be left behind.

The Acting Speaker: Are there questions and comments on the minister's speech?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The minister began the introduction of this debate with the statement, "Ontarians have long understood the importance of education to the wellbeing of this province." I agree with that. I think it's only too bad, perhaps tragic, that the minister and his government do not have a similar understanding of the importance of education to the wellbeing of this province.

The only part of the minister's introductory statement that has any relevance to the bill he is presenting today is his repeated concern about costs, his constant and now repeated efforts to dump on school trustees across this province, to point to trustees' apparent lack of responsibility in controlling what he considers to be spiralling education costs.

It is part of the minister's inability to want to paint whole pictures that he does not make any mention of the fact that over recent years education costs have been progressively dumped on to the local taxpayer and therefore have become the responsibility of school boards, that the province has paid less and less of a share of educational costs and that school trustees indeed have faced the very difficult decisions of knowing how to cope with those cuts, manage taxes in a way which is responsible, fair and realistic and still preserve a quality of education for the students in their schools.

The minister seems to have no appreciation of the kind of role that school trustees have played in this province. The minister chooses to use only bits and pieces of information.

This has been a consistent pattern with this minister, using bits and pieces of information that he can then use to distort the picture being given so that taxpayers and citizens will have a very different picture of educational spending and the realities of where educational dollars are spent, all to serve a clearly predetermined political and personal agenda of this minister and a political agenda of a government which has one goal and one goal only, that is, to somehow, however desperately, find the means to pay --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. The member's time has expired.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. This is two-minute responses.

Mrs McLeod: Oh, I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I'm getting into my debate.

The Acting Speaker: It was a very good two-minute response, and in a few minutes you'll have the opportunity to continue.

Further questions or comments?

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to say to the former leader of the Liberal Party that that was a great two-minute response. I look forward to hearing the other 90 minutes.

For the benefit of those people who may be in the gallery or indeed watching who expected that we would be debating Bill 103 or doing other things this afternoon, we should point out that we are debating Bill 104, the education bill.

The reason that is happening is because we finally seem to have gotten somewhere with respect to the government understanding the importance of the issues before us and at least being prepared -- though I'll believe it when I see it -- under Bill 103 to have the referendum process unfold first and then deal with the bill here only after that has happened.

But let me come back to Bill 104, because here too we see many similarities with the issues we have been raising under Bill 103. Here too there was a very clear promise made by this government, which was that it would protect classroom spending, and we know that what's behind this education bill is a fundamental breach of that very important promise.

The minister can cut it every which way he wants, but until and unless he's prepared to stand up and answer the question he's so far refused to answer, which he was asked again when he put forward this legislation and this proposal, that is, will he guarantee that the present amount of funding being spent on education will continue to be spent on education -- he's refused to answer that.

We know that what this is about is taking about $1 billion out of the school system of this province. At the end of the day, you can't get that kind of money without cutting in the classroom.

I know the boards of education in my riding of Durham East, in fact all of Durham in the Northumberland and Clarington Board of Education, are very pleased. In fact, the directors have called me personally, Grant Yeo and Dick Malowney --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Give me names. Send them over.

Mr O'Toole: Give you names? Grant Yeo, Dick Malowney. They're very satisfied with these changes. They're satisfied and are prepared to work with the minister in the restructuring of education and the refocusing of education to the classroom.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Fort York, come to order.

Mr O'Toole: I think fewer school boards and more parent involvement are exactly what the people of Ontario want. I've heard it from the parent advisory committees in my riding. I've attended many of them, and I know they're supportive of these changes. They want a voice. Not just parents but grandparents, all citizens in the community, w