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

September 30, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L238a - Tue 30 Sep 1997 / Mar 30 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OWEN SOUND SALMON DERBY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTRUING

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

TELEPHONE SERVICES

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

CHARITABLE GAMING

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PROPERTY TAXATION

ONTARIO HYDRO

HOME CARE

PROSTITUTION

DOMESTIC ABUSE

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

PETITIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

ANIMAL WELFARE

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HUNTING AND FISHING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

COURT DECISION

TVONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

ABORTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (N O 2)

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Last night over 7,500 teachers in Ottawa-Carleton met to discuss the Harris government's most recent attack on education, Bill 160.

These are teachers, professional people, custodians of our children's future, being compelled to act as a result of the Harris government's compulsion to find $1 billion more in cuts to education. These teachers have already seen the effects of cuts to education made to date by this government: the elimination of junior kindergarten, the increases in class size, the cuts to special education for children with learning disabilities, the cuts to adult education, the cuts to children's safety -- the list goes on.

Teachers realize that Bill 160 will gut our education system even further and they're not prepared to accept any further damage to our educational system any more.

The Minister of Education has succeeded in creating yet another crisis in education. He has succeeded in polarizing teachers in our community and threatening the future of our children's education. I call on him to withdraw Bill 160 and to work with educators and parents so we can improve our education system to better serve our children, not gut it with an ill-conceived income tax cut.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Today and yesterday Ontario's Environmental Commissioner, Eva Ligeti, was visiting the Windsor area. I am pleased to see that she is in the area because residents in Windsor-Riverside certainly take their environmental concerns seriously.

You will recall the commissioner's annual report last year that was very critical of this government's actions with respect to the environment. No longer is Ontario a leader in environmental protection.

It's a good thing the commissioner is doing the outreach she is doing in our communities because with cuts to the Ministry of Environment and Energy budget of 36% and of cuts in staff of over 800, including half of the staff in the Windsor regional office, we can be assured this government is not going to take environmental concerns seriously.

As a result of her visit there is a couple in our area who are making an application under the Environmental Bill of Rights. Jean Bertrand said, "Look at the fire in Hamilton -- [this] plant is in the middle of our town and we're concerned about a fire." They're making an application because there's a similar plant in the Amherstburg area.

The Environmental Bill of Rights was passed by the NDP government. We appointed Eva Ligeti as the commissioner and I was proud to play a role in that, but it certainly wasn't our intention that she assume the whole job to make up for the destruction of the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

OWEN SOUND SALMON DERBY

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On August 30 I had the distinct pleasure of travelling to Owen Sound to participate in the Sydenham Sportsmen's Annual Salmon Spectacular Fishing Derby. This was the third consecutive year my son and I trekked to Owen Sound in pursuit of the mighty Chinook salmon. Despite the fact we have yet to make the leader board, thanks to our crafty charter boat captain, Gerry Karn, we never come home empty-handed.

The Owen Sound salmon spectacular is without a doubt one of the finest examples of the wise use of natural resources in our province. The 10-day derby is the brainchild and result of the hard work of the Sydenham Sportmen's Association, a club boasting a membership of over 600 Grey-Bruce anglers and hunters. The association is constantly involved in stream enhancement projects, community wildlife involvement programs and community fisheries programs. They've won numerous conservation awards for their efforts.

Since 1982 the club annually raises and stocks literally hundreds of thousands of Chinook salmon, Rainbow and Skamania. The most popular hallmark of the derby has to be the Saturday night fish fries, where a team of volunteers organized by my colleague from Grey-Owen Sound, Bill Murdoch, cooks and serves delicious local salmon to over 6,000 hungry guests.

I would encourage all fishing or sight-seeing enthusiasts to mark the last weekend in August on your calendars. I know my colleague from Grey-Owen Sound would be more than happy to arrange your charter boat and put you to work at the fish fry. My thanks and congratulations to the Sydenham Sportsmen --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements. Member for York South.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTRUING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today to bring some comfort to the patients of Ontario, that finally there is some indication that the hurt they've been experiencing, the hardship they've seen in the hospitals around the province, is starting to get understood. In fact we've had two reports in the last week which ought to be available to every member of the back bench of the governing Conservative party because they show conclusively that the cuts made by the Harris government are hurting patients.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce says $604 million was taken away from hospitals; those are independent figures. The government tried to disguise this, tried to say there was reinvestment, but the bank says differently. Similarly the Ivey school of business reviewed 12 hospitals coping with changes -- in fact the 12 hospitals that were most advanced -- and they said only two of them were even having a chance of dealing with this.

It must bring great distress to the back bench to know their government has had these figures all along, to know this government went ahead cutting hospitals when they had their own report determine in January of this year that they could only hurt patients. Now we have the Ivey school of business saying the cuts can't continue. Instead of having a reaction by the government that agrees, we have a sloughing off again, unfortunately, of the kinds of very conservative findings which were put forward by this organization.

We know the $1.3-billion cut to hospitals has damaged patients. We know patients now are starting to hear their voices being reflected in what's being heard across the province. What we don't have is any proof or any reason to believe that this government is finally going to listen, unfortunately.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Last night in this House we were in debate around Bill 149, the property tax assessment bill, the very same bill in which the Conservatives have decided to impose market value assessment on the city of Toronto and others. In that debate yesterday it was quite interesting to listen to the comments of some of the government members, and one member, whom I will not name, because I want to be fair-minded about this --

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

Mr Bisson: Name names? The member for Quinte yesterday said in his speech that a government knows it's doing a good job if everybody is mad at it. Well, I'll tell you, this government takes the cake. They're certainly doing a wonderful job based on all the complaints and criticisms I've heard from people across society.

Who's mad at this government? Police officers are mad, firefighters are mad, ambulance attendants are mad, doctors are mad, the small business community is mad, the teachers are mad; almost everybody is mad at this provincial government. It makes me wonder what their caucus meetings are like. Can you imagine? The member goes into a caucus meeting and Mike Harris says, "Don't worry, if everybody is mad at us, we're doing a good job." Then the caucus members come to caucus and say: "Mike, there's another group mad at us. We're doing a better job, Mike. We've got another group mad at us."

It was truly a revealing comment made in the speech from the member for Quinte yesterday. I'll let them know there are still a few groups to be mad at them, so you're not doing a perfect job at it yet.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I would like to take this opportunity today to inform the House that this coming Sunday, October 5 at 10 am, a long-awaited event will take place in my riding high atop Hamilton Mountain. This Sunday our community will celebrate the official opening of the east-west portion of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. This

section of the expressway will be referred to as the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway or the Linc, named after one of Hamilton's finest citizens and a former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

The importance of the Red Hill Creek Expressway project to the economic growth and development of the region cannot be underestimated. This project will provide a vital transportation link for Hamilton businesses and citizens. In my riding of Hamilton Mountain, small and medium-sized businesses have been waiting for this quick access route to the 403 for over a decade. Many of them located their businesses on the mountain in the 1980s on the assumption that they would have a good transportation route for their goods.

In June 1995 the Progressive Conservative Party of Mike Harris promised the region of Hamilton-Wentworth that it would help fund the completion of this important project, a project that the previous NDP government had stalled. I am pleased to say that this government has lived up to its promise and the Red Hill Creek Expressway will be completed.

I invite everyone to come out this coming Sunday and join myself and all our regional and provincial representatives as we celebrate the first half of this key infrastructure project, a project that will help bring jobs and economic growth to our community of Hamilton-Wentworth.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With the Harris government in full retreat on almost all fronts this month, it is time for the Conservative government of Ontario to reverse itself on the slashing of hospital operating budgets by restoring the funds it has already chopped from the hospital field.

The hospital restructuring committee established by the Niagara District Health Council brought forward its drastic recommendations based upon the fact that deep cuts have already been made in local hospital funding and further cuts amounting to over $40 million would be required in the next few years. As a result, the committee recommended the closing or substantial change in operation of five Niagara region hospitals: Hotel Dieu, West Lincoln Memorial, Port Colborne, Douglas Memorial and Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The withdrawal of adequate hospital funding in the operations field by the Harris regime has brought about the inevitable confrontation between supporters of hospitals in St Catharines, and this slashing of the hospital budget allocation has forced hospitals to reduce service to a point where the provincial government hopes that local people will accede to a closing of one of our hospitals.

The fact is that we need all of our hospitals in St Catharines, the General, the Hotel Dieu and the Shaver, and we need them funded adequately to provide excellent service to our residents.

I intend to hold Mike Harris to his election commitment which he made during the leaders' debate in May 1995 when he said, "Certainly I can guarantee you, Robert, it is not my plan to close hospitals."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have to tell you that I have profound concerns about what is happening in the educational system and concerns about mon ami M. Snobelen, the new Frankenstein of our educational system, who has done more to destabilize the educational system than anyone before him. Perhaps it is under the guise of privatizing some of our schools. Who knows? But he has done a hell of a lot to demoralize teachers, he has done a hell of a lot to panic trustees and to simply send them away from public service and he has done a hell of a lot to confuse parents about what is going on in the educational system.

I know that the member for Huron yesterday and mon ami M. Snobelen talked about how they don't want to burden our children with debts down the line, and the member for Huron talked about not wanting to mortgage our children's future. What about their income tax cut that does more to take money out of the system than anything else? What about the evisceration of funding for our public and Catholic school systems and university system? They have eviscerated funding unlike anybody before. How does that square off with their concern about not mortgaging the future of their children? Teachers and people who are concerned about teaching should fight back against this agenda, and that will happen.

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Recently one of Toronto's daily newspapers reported the results of a leaked Bell Canada internal report. The phone company interviewed 3,414 people, by telephone naturally, to find out what people think of Bell Canada.

They discovered that people are frustrated that it's getting more and more expensive to make a local call. There have been five increases in two years, raising the average monthly rate from $14 to $25, an 80% increase, while inflation has been less than 4%. Small wonder that, according to the survey, people are looking forward to the opening up of the local telephone market to competition next year and that they are planning to cut back on added costs such as call display and call waiting.

With every increase in local rates, every family in my riding of Scarborough East and all across Ontario, from the poorest on up, must make a decision, that they continue to subsidize Bell's huge profits or do without the lifeline of phone service.

Bell Canada's employees are tremendously dedicated at providing the best service they can for their customers, but in 1996 Bell Canada's parent company, BCE Inc, surpassed General Motors to become the most profitable company in Canada, with a total net income of over $1 billion.

Ontarians should be afforded the greatest possible choice at the lowest possible costs. Competition is healthy, indeed it's critical, in a growing economy. I know that residents all across this province are looking forward to competition in the local phone sector and I agree with them wholeheartedly.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Major Singh Uboke, member of Parliament for the riding of Tarn Tarn in Punjab, India. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. By now, no one in this province believes that your downloading exercise will be a revenue-neutral exercise. People just don't believe your assurances that social services, the cost of roads, highways, GO Transit, ambulances, public health, child care and social housing will not cost municipalities any more money. No one believes you any more. What people do believe is that municipalities will be saddled with an additional $670 million worth of costs. Municipalities fear they'll either have to raise taxes or cut vital services.

Minister, I'm going to ask you today, will you come clean and tell the truth about what the impacts of downloading will be on municipalities? Will you stand up and tell the truth about that today?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member of the opposition, we told the municipalities a year and a half ago, in fact in 1995, that we were going to eliminate the municipal support grant. We took it from $1.4 billion down to $900 million, this year down to $667 million, and then we told them that would be eliminated as well. Most of the municipalities have been able to deal with that reduction without any problem, and most have assured us that they can deal with that again without any additional problems.

One of the opposition's own members, who is now running for regional chair in Ottawa, has stated that he intends to have his whole three-year term without any tax increases as a result of the separation of services. The candidate for the new city of Toronto, Mayor Lastman of North York, states that he will not have any tax increases as a result of the separation of services.

Mr Cordiano: I want to tell the minister that one of his friends and allies, the mayor of Mississauga, Hazel McCallion -- remember her? -- had a thing or two to say at a press conference this morning. She released the results of an Environics poll that showed that the majority of the people in the regions, in York, Halton, Peel and Durham, believe that as a result of your downloading, property taxes will go up. A majority believe as well that social services should be paid for from income taxes, not property taxes. Interestingly enough, two thirds of the residents of that area have more trust in their mayors than they do in the Premier in receiving information about municipalities.

Minister, it's clear that you and the Premier have a credibility problem. No one believes you any more. Why should they? You haven't released any of the numbers. I want to ask you today: Release the numbers that make the case that this will be a revenue-neutral exercise.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know where the member opposite has been for the last month. On August 6 last, we gave all the upper tiers the numbers. We also made a commitment to the municipalities that this exercise would be revenue-neutral.

The member opposite talked about the polling that was done by Peel region. I have it right here in my hands. The question is, "Predicted net effect of downloading on the quality of services," and 61% say it would be better or no change, as a result of the separation of services to the municipalities. I don't know if it can get any clearer than that. The member opposite should do a little bit of homework before he sticks his foot in his mouth again.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Minister, Hazel McCallion doesn't believe you. She believes you've got the data now and that you're intentionally holding it back until after the municipal election. When are you going to release those figures? We want to know when you're going to release those figures.

Let me just remind you of what you stated at the general government committee two weeks ago. You said, "On October 6, each municipality will be presented with the exact figures they need for the separation of services." We would like to know, are you going to release all the figures on October 6, as you said at the committee two weeks ago?

Hon Mr Leach: I really have to thank the members of the opposition for these questions. I think David Lindsay must write them for them.

We said two weeks ago that we would release the numbers on October 6, and the numbers will be released on October 6. We fully intend to provide every municipality in the province with their numbers. We also intend to meet with every upper tier, with their local members and their separated cities to go over those numbers. We said we would do it on October 6 and we intend to keep that promise. I intend to be in Sudbury on October 6, speaking to the regional chairman and the county wardens, where I will outline the process we're going through.

What did we say we would do? We said we would release the numbers. What are we going to do? We're going to release the numbers on October 6. We have said that this exercise is going to be revenue-neutral, and it will be revenue-neutral.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You say you have talked to teachers. You say you have understood their concerns. You insist that teachers are not going to go on strike. I don't know what teachers you've been talking to, because you're hearing something that nobody else is.

Last Thursday, hundreds of teachers told you they were prepared to strike in defence of public education. Last night, 6,000 teachers in Ottawa, more than 2,000 teachers in Sudbury and thousands more in St Thomas, St Catharines, Parry Sound, Northumberland and Red Lake all sent you exactly the same message. They believe your government is about to cut funding, lay off thousands of teachers and destroy public education. They know that's what you plan to do when you take total control of education. They are going to do whatever they can to stop you.

Minister, are you still so determined to ram through your agenda, with teachers as the latest target, that you will force this confrontation with Ontario teachers?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I have talked to a number of teachers over the course of the last couple of years. I want to let the member know that the teachers I've talked to are in favour of having a system of education that promotes the best student performance in Canada, not the middle of the pack as we currently have, and a system that supports them to do that.

They're in favour of a system that's funded in a way that every student in Ontario has an equal opportunity to a high quality education, which is not the current circumstance with the general legislative grant program. They're in favour of having class sizes capped so they don't grow, because the teachers in the classroom have to deal with that phenomena. It may be negotiated at a bargaining table, but they have to deal with it. They're in favour of having class sizes capped, and not grow and grow. They're in favour of spending more time with their students, because the teachers of Ontario are professional people who want to honour their responsibility with their students.

That's the bottom line. That's why they're in favour of this agenda.

Mrs McLeod: Hear teachers. Hear what they're trying to tell you. They do not want to go on strike. They want to teach. They want to work with their students inside and outside the classroom. They want to be well prepared so they can do their job well. That's what teachers want to do and it is what teachers have always done. But you are making it impossible for them to do that any longer with your cuts to budgets and your need to make even more cuts by cutting teachers.

Here's what one teacher, Louis Guertin, who teaches at Osgoode township high school in Metcalfe has tried to tell you about his concern. He says that he'll be walking -- not only for the sake of his students but for his own children who are seven and nine -- because if your changes go through, he will not want his children in the public education system and he can't afford a private school.

Louis Guertin is determined to do whatever he can to stop you. Will you tell Louis Guertin, not just as a teacher but as a parent, how taking another $1 billion out of education and laying off thousands of teachers will benefit either his students or his children?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I agree with the member for Fort William on one count; I disagree with her on another. On the count I agree with her on, she just said, and I agree with her, that teachers don't want to strike. I agree with that; that's what I've been saying for two months. I'm glad the member for Fort William finally has the message.

Regarding the withdrawal of funds from this system, the member for Fort William has ignored the fact that the gross spending on education has gone up year over year over the last year although enrolment has gone down, and has ignored completely this government's commitment to spend whatever it takes to make sure that every child in this province has a right to a high-quality education, to fund at that level, and is going through the process of asking experts exactly what our young people need so we can provide that funding.

For the first time, the province will be able to guarantee that to the students of this province. I think it's a major breakthrough in the quality of education and so will teachers when they see it.

Mrs McLeod: For just one minute this afternoon, will you please focus on what is happening in education now, today? You and Mike Harris, hand in hand, have taken education to the edge of a precipice and you are now getting ready to push both teachers and students over the edge.

Mike Harris has said he's prepared to talk. So far your talking has been nothing but ultimatums: $1 billion more out of education and the laying off of thousands of teachers. You have said you're willing to meet with teachers. You said this morning you're prepared to cooperate for the students' sake. But you haven't called teachers, you haven't written to them, you've made no overture at all since you last laid down your ultimatum.

You can prove today that you are prepared to cooperate for the sake of students by doing three things: retreat from your intention to cut another $1 billion from education; retreat from your plans to cut as many as 10,000 teachers out of education; and withdraw Bill 160 so there can be a reasonable resolution to the conflict with teachers and so there will not be a province-wide strike. Will you do these three things today?

Hon Mr Snobelen: You cannot withdraw from an intention you don't have, and the member for Fort William knows we do not have those intentions. We have said day in and day out and spelled out very clearly what our intention is.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I appreciate all the advice the member for Scarborough East offers. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Once again, and no longer surprisingly, the member for Fort William has said something today that is just not backed by fact. I wrote to the Ontario Teachers' Federation last week and asked them for a meeting. I wrote to them again last night and asked them for a meeting, because I think it's important we discuss these issues for our students.

Lastly, let me be very clear to the member for Fort William: We are certainly standing hand in hand, my colleagues and I, on a breakthrough on our schools in Ontario so that our students will no longer be middle of the pack, so our students will rise to the top of the class, so our students' performance will be the best in Canada. That's what our objective is and we're moving forward on that step by step by step, building a better education for the young people of this province. I am proud of that.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the mess surrounding the government's casino policy and the conflicts of interest which are beginning to be obvious.

I want to quote from the Canadian Gaming News, because it has another report about the connection between Domenic Alfieri, the former president of the Ontario Casino Corp, with the Trillium group, one of the lucky eight high-powered casino operators picked by your government last week to own and operate your government's charity casinos.

Then there's the

article that relates that Paul Burns, a former adviser to one David Tsubouchi, is now with RPC Anchor, another of the successful bidders. As Canadian Gaming News says, some people are questioning the fairness of the process. It is very difficult for anyone. When are we going to see your conflict-of-interest legislation, Minister?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think the question with respect to the conflict-of-interest legislation or rules would be better served going to the House leader, who is involved with that actual process, but let me speak to the issues the leader of the third party raised.

This actually came up, probably several months ago, in a similar question, and I wish I had the Hansard for my reply to him. Mr Burns left my office --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'll answer the question again, because we had to answer this before in the House. Mr Burns left my office prior to the release of the RFP. He had discussed his departure with the Integrity Commissioner, who advised him that at that point in time he had no concerns that Mr Burns would be violating any rules, as long as he left prior to the release of the RFP. So we have had this discussion before.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer, please.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I might comment with respect to the process, we clearly indicated that the process is to be an independent, arm's-length, transparent process --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Minister, let me put this together for you. Your government, to get its way on its gambling initiative, is willing to put a significant number of small businesses off the block, threaten charities with loss of their revenues, bribe communities with a promise of money, and now your government officials are jumping into bed with big American gambling interests. Just how much of a pimp are you willing to be on behalf of these interests?

The Speaker: I didn't hear the very end of that question, so I will offer the answer to the minister, unless you stand and -- if I had heard you correctly, I would have asked you to withdraw, but I'm not certain I did.

Mr Martin: I can put it differently, Speaker, if you like. How much is your government willing to prostitute itself for, for big American gambling interests in this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Since the honourable member had two cracks at asking the question, perhaps I have a little bit of leeway in terms of answering the question. With respect to the way the member asked the question in the first place, I can only say if that's the case, then the bed was warmed by you guys first.

The selection process that was followed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario was very similar to the process followed by the previous government in terms of awarding the contract to the permanent commercial casino in Windsor. The process was clearly one that was independent. We wanted to make sure it was independent of political involvement and therefore the decision was made and evaluated by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. The committee consisted of representatives from the Gaming Control Commission, the Attorney General's counsel, the OPP, and the outside experts from Deloitte and Touche and Coopers and Lybrand.

This clearly had absolutely no input from either our ministry or the rest of the government. That's why we wanted to keep it independent. I might add that I understand of the firms selected by the board, seven have a Canadian equity component and six of the eight have at least a 50% Canadian equity.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Minister, yesterday you were talking about compensation to municipalities as part of your charitable casino initiative. I want to remind you of the experience in Windsor-Riverside that I'd like to share with respect to those municipalities that may be tempted to take up this government's bribe to locate charity casinos in their municipality.

Before the last election, Mike Harris promised our community 10% of the revenues from the Windsor casino, but after the votes were counted, suddenly the selection priority was not a priority any longer. People are asking two years later, "Where is the money?"

My question is this: If you have no intention of fulfilling your promise to the city of Windsor to share 10% of the revenue, why should municipalities in Ontario believe you when you're offering them bribes to take charitable casinos now?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, the municipalities have indicated to us, certainly over the last several months, that they had a concern in terms of resources needed to be used to monitor the effects of both the charity gaming club and the video lottery terminals, but also to have discussions within their own communities to determine what's best for their own communities. This is simply compensating back to municipalities. We've put it in writing to them. Everyone has had it in writing from us that this is $1,500 per video lottery machine.

But I might say that not everyone agrees with the honourable member in terms of the effect plus the positive aspect it can bring to your community. I might ask you to turn to your right a little bit and to the member for Cochrane South, who indicated he was pleased with the recent announcement because it will mean jobs in the Timmins area. Certainly this means between 200 and 300 jobs --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Those comments were never made by myself, and the minister knows that. I ask him to withdraw.

The Speaker: I have no idea and I don't want to get involved in that. You may correct your own record. The minister's record is his to correct.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Speaker, I'm sure the member gets the advantage of having the press clippings as well. They indicated over the weekend on CJQQ radio that the reports were that this was the case. If it wasn't, I certainly agree that it's a good-news scenario for Timmins, because it will mean 200 to 300 jobs in the area.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. A week ago the Premier said very publicly, in an effort to head off a potential clash with teachers across the province, that he would be willing to meet with the leadership of the various teachers' federations to discuss some of the issues of concern. Can you tell us, please, what the Premier has done over the last week and if he has met with any of the leadership of the various teachers' federations to discuss the issues of concern.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I can tell the leader of the third party what I have done as Minister of Education to promote some discussions with the teachers' federations. I think they would be useful and fruitful. I understand the Premier thinks the same way.

I wrote to the president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and asked a week ago for a meeting, for the fourth time, to discuss the proposal we've had to have an early retirement package available for teachers so we can keep young teachers in the teaching profession. I wrote again yesterday to the president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and asked for a meeting so that we can discuss the issues surrounding the bill that we recently put in the House and other issues that may be of concern to the teachers' federation.

We have taken those steps and we have a track record of having fruitful conversations with teachers' federations and being able to alter the legislation that's before the House now because of those negotiations and consultations. I look forward to having more in the future. I think it's useful.

Mr Hampton: The answer is incredible. The fact of the matter is that the Premier has done absolutely nothing. Despite his public statements, he has done absolutely nothing to meet with the leadership of the various teachers' federations.

The minister refers to what he has done. I want to refer to what the minister has done as well. The first thing he did when he became Minister of Education was to say to ministry staff that the government needs to create a crisis in education. The second thing he did, after the government promised not to take any money out of classroom education, was to take $800 million out of the classroom on an annualized basis.

But it doesn't end there; it goes on. You are the minister who publicly across this province started to refer to our educational system as a broken system and you are the Minister of Education who on a regular basis started to talk about Ontario's students as mediocre. Your response is simply to write a letter now.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question, please.

Mr Hampton: I want to ask you again: You are the person who has promoted this crisis. What is the Premier doing? Who has he met with in order to head off --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I won't go through a line-by-line response to all the things in the leader of the third party's

preamble. They're obviously not accurate, and I think that's obvious to the leader of the third party.

I will say this. We had meetings coming out of the Bill 100 review with teachers. They expressed their concerns. We had meetings with them before we tabled the legislation. They expressed their concerns. They expressed their concerns about the right to strike, and we met that concern. They expressed their concern about the Bill 100 review that suggested that they lose their monopoly in representing teachers. We said that teachers expressed no problem with that, and so we respected what they told us.

They told us they wanted to make sure that principals remain part of their community, remained in the bargaining unit, because they felt that would be the best environment in a school for learning and for the students, and we respected that submission.

We have a track record, unlike your government when it was in power, of talking with people, discussing things with them and bringing legislation forward that meets their concerns. We will continue to develop that track record in the interests of our students.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you say you have a track record. You do indeed have a track record, and let me continue reading from it. You are the Minister of Education who hired your personal lawyer to do a review of teachers' collective bargaining. A bit of a conflict of interest? You are the person who began over a year ago mumbling from one end of the province about how you wanted to take a further $1 billion out of the education system, and then you are the Minister of Education who in your legislation has attacked the very thing that teachers care about most.

Teachers do want to be able to engage in discussion and negotiation about class size, because their working conditions affect children's learning conditions. You are the person who has introduced in the legislation an attempt to take away teachers' preparation time.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: From the beginning until now, you have done everything you possibly can to force a confrontation with teachers. I want to know what the Premier has done about his promise --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be very clear about track records. Your party is the party that left our students with fuzzy standards on a three-year basis so that no one understood, grade by grade, what was expected of them. We are the government, sir, that has brought in grade-by-grade standards. We are the people who have brought in a province-wide report card. We are the people who are fixing --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be clear. You left our students with an unclear curriculum. You left our students stuck in mediocrity in terms of their performance on pan-Canadian and international tests. The leader of the third party --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: You left our students with a $41,000 debt each. That's what you left our students with: a poor-quality education and a high debt. That's what you did to diminish their futures. We are working hard to repair the damage you have done, to repair the problems you created for our students. We'll continue to work hard to do that, because we believe the future of this province and the future of those young people depend on our hard work to improve the quality of education they get right across the province. I and my colleagues are committed to that goal and will continue to be committed to it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Education and it is around Bill 160. One of the most amazing parts of the bill to many of us is that it gives Mike Harris the power to unilaterally, all by himself, set property tax rates to collect over $6 billion of property tax. For the first time in Ontario's history, it can all be done with the stroke of a pen, with no debate, in private, by the Premier, by what's called regulation. Mike Harris, alone, can set $6 billion of property tax. He's the $6-billion tax king with this bill.

My question is this: Why does Mike Harris want this bill to give him the power to unilaterally set $6 billion of property taxes in the province?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm sure it won't surprise the honourable member that I take exception to the way he has represented the bill.

But I can tell him this: If he wants to go around and talk to property taxpayers in Ontario, property taxpayers who have seen the education portion of their property tax expand by 120% in the last decade while enrolment went up not nearly that amount, while inflation was not nearly that amount, if he wants to talk to the people who are paying those property taxes that are out of control, he'll find out why the people of Ontario think it's finally time for someone to take control of that, for someone to cap the costs they're paying through their property taxes for education.

They've been asking for that for some time. It fell on deaf ears with your government, sir. It has not with this government.

Mr Phillips: Perhaps you don't understand the bill or perhaps you just don't want to answer it. But I want to say on behalf of Ontario that this is unprecedented. It is undemocratic. The Premier, with the stroke of a pen, no debate -- nobody from the public can have any input in this. This will be done at the cabinet table by the Premier, setting $6 billion of property tax. It is unheard of, and the people of Ontario want an answer from you. Do you understand, Minister, what you are doing? You are giving Mike Harris the unilateral power, unprecedented, to personally set $6 billion of property tax rate.

My question to you again is that this is undemocratic. Do you not agree that it is wrong? Do you not agree that the people of Ontario deserve an opportunity to have a discussion and a debate and some input before you set their property taxes? Do you not agree that it is wrong to give Mike Harris those unilateral powers? Will you agree today to change the bill so the people of Ontario will have some input before Mike Harris sets their property taxes?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We have done some broad consulting before this bill arrived in this Legislature. I'd suggest the honourable member do some consulting with the people of Ontario, because he will find they are frustrated and angry and fed up with rising property taxes to education. If he talks to the mayors from around Ontario, they'll tell him that they are tired of taking responsibility for collecting that, because they keep getting hit by their constituents that their property taxes are going up because of the school boards.

What we have done is that we have answered the request of AMO, we have acted on the reports that have been submitted to previous governments that fell on deaf ears.

Interjections.

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

Hon Mr Snobelen: During the proceeding of this bill through the House, during the debate on it, I'm glad that the member opposite will be presenting to the people of Ontario the opportunity of continuing to pay escalating property taxes. My colleagues and I will be proud to go them and say their property taxes for education will be cut in half because of this legislation.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the minister responsible for Ontario Hydro, the Minister of Energy. The minister will know, I hope, that today the select committee on Hydro begins its hearings and that next week we'll be hearing from Mr Carl Andognini, the American whiz kid who's going to turn Hydro around.

The problem is that Mr Andognini, it seems to me, has a credibility problem. I have a copy of his application to the Atomic Energy Control Board that he made last spring -- he was applying for a five-year licence -- in which he said:

"A longer licence renewal regime would allow the licensee to more effectively manage its nuclear operation while proactively and expeditiously addressing necessary analytical work. As you are aware, licence periods in excess of 10 years for nuclear facilities are granted in other countries."

This is what Mr Andognini said to the AECB last spring. Then, a month or so later, he declares there's a crisis in Hydro's nuclear plants. Do you have any insights or inside information on which Mr Andognini will be appearing before the committee?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Actually, both Mr Andogninis will be appearing.

Mr Laughren: It's a very good thing the select committee consists of some of the more experienced members in this assembly or we wouldn't be able to deal with that.

Mr Andognini's application to the AECB is full of all sorts of upbeat statements, but as I say, a month later it was a crisis at Ontario Hydro in their nuclear division. In it he says, this is to the AECB, "By defining good operation, monitoring performance and taking action to drive continued improvement, we ensure that the highest station priority, safe operation of the operating units, is being maintained." A month later it's a crisis situation.

What's bothering me is this is the person who is the chief of the nuclear division and you obviously must have some confidence in him or he wouldn't be there. I'm asking you today, do you find it as breathtaking as I do that Mr Andognini is making these statements?

Hon Mr Sterling: I think the member will find that as he goes through the select committee hearings, this problem and the context in which Mr Andognini is making the particular statements he refers to are very different with regard to the reason those statements were made. I guess what is very difficult for the public to understand and for members of the committee to grapple with is that the AECB, Ontario Hydro and Mr Andognini have said the reactors are operating safely at the present time.

The conundrum, of course, is to operate these reactors safely at a much higher efficiency; in other words, instead of being up 55% of the time, being up 80% of the time. That is the real question that is going on here and what Mr Andognini is trying to address.

That is why we have struck the select committee, so the public will have the answer to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, member for Hamilton Mountain.

HOME CARE

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. As you well know, many of my constituents on Hamilton Mountain are seniors, and during this time of health care restructuring they're deeply concerned. Their reliance on home care services makes them particularly vulnerable. My seniors have told me they need to be able to rely on support workers who serve them where they live -- the nurses, homemakers, therapy services and other home care workers. Without the assistance of these services, many people who now live independently would be in hospitals or long-term-care facilities.

In Hamilton right now the responsibility for home care services is being transferred over to community care access centres or CCACs. Minister, would you please explain to the seniors of my riding what makes the CCACs a superior method of service delivery versus the status quo, and how will they improve the care being offered to my constituents?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank the member for his question and advise him and all members of the House this government is very proud of the 43 new community care access centres it has implemented across this province. This is overcoming previous problems of seniors and the disabled having to phone three or four different phone numbers, and also they'd have multiple assessments being done on them for a whole range of services.

This one-window access to home care is more sensitive to their needs, more cost-effective for taxpayers, and therefore we'll be able to provide more services. So far, I'm pleased to report, we've started up 41 community care access centres across this province and seniors are very enthusiastic about the new moneys that are coming in.

I know members on all sides of the House have raised questions about the deficit in Hamilton-Wentworth. I want to assure members that what's changed in Hamilton-Wentworth is that we have community members serving on a board, with higher standards of accountability for service agreements. Business plans are now being signed for the first time in Ontario's history and we're very proud of that.

Mr Pettit: What especially worries my elderly constituents is the transitional period when the system is changing from the current community providers to the new CCAC structure. They worry that some services could fall by the wayside as the system and the administration are realigning themselves. I would ask the minister to assure the seniors of Hamilton Mountain and the province that the restructuring will be competently managed and they will continue to receive the same high quality of care during this period of transition.

Hon Mr Jackson: I can assure members that CCACs will be delivering the highest-quality services available in this province. I'm pleased to report, having visited almost every one of these CCAC centres across the province, that the transition period has gone very smoothly. There has been no disruption of services. We have provided additional equity funding, they have signed their business agreements and we're very pleased the transition phase has worked very well. In fact, on Friday I was in Sudbury meeting with all nine northern CCACs to discuss and resolve any of the difficulties they might be experiencing.

The bottom line is that seniors and the disabled have waited 10 years, through three governments, to have this form of service delivery for seniors and the disabled in this province. We're very proud that we have been able to provide it, that it is increasing accountability at the local governance model level in communities, that we are having a common assessment tool so that seniors, whether they're in Hamilton or in Thunder Bay, are getting equal treatment, and finally, that we are bringing quality assurances for the first time in home care to the province.

PROSTITUTION

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. You are part of a government that proudly proclaims it is fighting for law and order and common sense, yet ironically while you are busy imposing a whole range of user fees on the people of Ontario, it seems you are not willing to allow men who purchase sexual favours to contribute a $500 fee towards john school, a program that helps them to deal with the consequences of their behaviour.

The proponents of the fee argue that the $500 fee would be in the nature of recouping administrative costs for the Salvation Army and Metro Toronto, and go towards StreetLight, which is a program to help rehabilitate prostitutes. They argue that it is the johns, not the taxpayers, not the community, who ought to pay for these costs. Your ministry is stonewalling. Would you not agree that common sense dictates that you charge the appropriate people, the johns, and not the communities?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I appreciate the important question from the member. We have been working with the StreetLight organization to develop the program that now exists by way of the john school. Certainly we have worked with that organization and indicated an administrative fee would be reasonable in terms of funding the actual john school program.

Unfortunately, the cost of the recommended $450 or $500 fee is considerably more than the cost of running the program. I'd like to tell the member that similar programs are running in Hamilton, Ottawa and St Catharines where the administrative fee to be involved in these programs is roughly half that suggested by StreetLight. So we are working with StreetLight to come up with an administrative fee that will cover the cost of the program. That's the way we want to correct this situation.

Ms Castrilli: StreetLight is quite a different program. StreetLight is a program that rehabilitates prostitutes, but john school is what we're talking about. It is the fee for the john school that right now the province is refusing to allow, to pay for Metro Toronto johns. As you pointed out and indeed as Metro councillor Judy Sgro, the chair of the Task Force on Prostitution, has indicated, there are jurisdictions in Ontario which charge for the services that are rendered.

Really the question is: Why is it that in other jurisdictions in Ontario they are being allowed to levy a charge, and here in Metro Toronto that does not seem to be the case? Why the discrimination, why the delay, and what are you afraid of?

Hon Mr Harnick: I thought I had answered that question, and the answer is quite simply that we are prepared to allow an administrative charge to fund the john school program. The problem we have is that the administrative charge suggested by those who now operate the program is not only to operate the john school diversion program, set up pursuant to

section 213 of the Criminal Code, but it is to do more, it is to fund more than just this program.

The difficulty we have is that this is not the way other programs in Ontario have been set up. What we are inclined to want to do is set up the program to be consistent with those others to pay for the john school, because that is what the diversion program was set up to do. We are trying to develop an administrative fee that will do that and that will be consistent with other administrative fees so that we can run this diversion program properly.

DOMESTIC ABUSE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have here a letter from one of your parental support workers to a woman dependent on family benefits. The woman in question is a victim of spousal abuse. She lived for a time in the women's shelter and counselling services in Huron. Now she is on her own and is attempting to put her life together, but the letter she received from your ministry told her that it is her responsibility to ensure that here ex-partner, her abuser, be present at the benefits meeting.

The letter goes on to say that she is also responsible for ensuring that her abuser complete and forward a financial statement. "Failure to do so will require you to retain legal counsel and make an application for support," says the letter. Minister, are you aware of the kind of danger that puts a victim of spousal abuse in?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes, I am very aware of the danger. If the honourable member would very kindly provide me with the details, I'll look into it immediately.

Ms Churley: You need to understand the position of abuse victims. Minister of Community and Social Services, this letter constitutes nothing more than further abuse. Bill 142 gives unprecedented powers to your family support workers. If anything, you are making the situation worse.

We all understand the need to ensure that non-custodial parents pay their obligation. As you can see, Minister, I'm very upset by this, but your government is not enforcing support orders. It appears as though you have given abuse victims that responsibility. In your haste to make changes, you have forgotten some of the important details; in this case it is the lives of abuse victims. Where is the screening process? Why was this woman put in this frightening situation? Will you make sure that it doesn't happen again?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, and I appreciate the need for confidentiality in this, it's going to be a little difficult for me to follow up when I don't have the information of the individual who is in this circumstance. I would very much like to get that information so we are able to ensure that procedures were followed appropriately and that no one was put in danger.

The other thing I would like to say to the honourable member is that one of the things we are attempting to do in Bill 142, our welfare legislation, is to make sure we have parental support workers whose job it is to help women who have moneys owed to them by other parents who are not paying child support. One of the things we are attempting to do is to assist them. If procedures have not been followed, I will certainly look into this. I repeat to the honourable member that some information would be very helpful to follow through on this.

Ms Churley: It's a form letter, Janet. It's a form letter that your ministry is sending to victims of abuse. Will you admit it?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Riverdale, come to order. I'm warning the member for Riverdale to come to order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If a procedure has been adopted that is not appropriate for these circumstances, we will certainly change it. I would like to thank the honourable member for bringing it to my attention.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. The big issue in the riding this weekend when I was back home was clear. It's about the possibility of an illegal teachers' strike across Ontario. In fact, students were here today from Ridgeway and Crystal Beach High School. Mr Neigh's class and Mrs McCallum's class joined us in the gallery, and the students were very clear that they don't want to see an illegal strike in Ontario. I don't think in my heart of hearts that the classroom teachers want an illegal strike.

But every time I turn on the news or read the papers, unlike the students and unlike the classroom teachers, it seems like the leaders of the unions keep talking about pushing for an illegal strike across the province. I think it's very clear that the students, parents and classroom teachers want the children to stay in school, but the unions are playing a different tune.

My question to the minister: What is he doing to try to avert the possibility of an illegal teachers' strike?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Niagara South for the question. I share his view that the teachers in Ontario's classrooms have a great respect for their students and a wish to honour their obligations to those students and to their contracts. I agree that they are certainly not eager to do anything illegal.

I wrote to the president of the Ontario Teachers' Federation a week ago and asked for a series of talks. After publicly saying that I would be open for consultation, we wrote last night and suggested that that would be useful at this time. I'm looking forward to a response in the affirmative from the teachers' federation some time in the very near future.

Mr Hudak: I'm pleased to hear that the minister is open to these discussions. I'm sure the parents and students and the average classroom teacher out there are very pleased to hear that. The question I think they would have me ask is: What will be the issues the minister would discuss in these meetings?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I certainly wouldn't want to constrain the talks by setting parameters, but I can tell you I would be very interested in discussing with the teachers' federation how useful it would be for teachers and for students to have a cap on class sizes. I would be willing to talk with them about how elementary school teachers in Ontario have the same amount of time in class as their counterparts in other provinces, and yet our secondary school teachers have less time with their students than teachers in other provinces. I think it would be useful to have that conversation.

I would like to talk with them about how we could have a retirement package put in place -- we put $250 million in the last budget for this purpose -- to make sure we have young teachers coming into the system. I think it would be useful for us to have a conversation about that.

At the end of the day, as I have been for the last two and a half years, I'm interested in hearing their input on how we can meet what should be our common goals, I believe: to have the highest student performance in Canada by Ontario students and to do this at the best cost possible. I think that's what we owe our students and I'd be willing to work with the federations to do just that.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have some issues to raise with the Minister of Education regarding our post-secondary students in Ontario and the lack of support your government is giving to them. There are some facts that don't add up.

The number of students who need to borrow to finance their education has gone up this year by 53% since the 1991-92 year. Over the course of that time, your government has taken $20 million out of student job plans. You've raised tuition by 30%. You have put Ontario last on the list of funding per capita out of all other provinces. You've put us 10th out of 10. Your government is on the verge of implementing no rent control for students, who tend to move considerably more than others. On top of this, you have no real solution to address the skyrocketing debt that our college and university students are facing.

Your proposal of an income-contingent loan repayment plan has been severely criticized. The model is unworkable. It doesn't meet the needs of students. It will discourage qualified students from applying, knowing that their debts will be $25,000 or more. You've slammed the door on those students.

Why won't you sit down with the primary stakeholders, the students, to work out a better plan to deal with student debt than you have created?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to report to the member for Scarborough North that I have met with student associations over the last couple of years, working on the very difficult issue of how to support students in paying their fair share of their education costs. Most people recognize there is a fair share, but they also recognise that students will have a difficulty in meeting that fair share of their costs.

To do that we have encouraged our federal counterparts to work on an income-contingent loans package. It makes sense to us to allow students to repay their fair share over the productive course of their career, so that the repayment would be tailored to the amount of money they were earning after graduation. We understand students sometimes don't have high-paying jobs immediately after graduation, so an ICLP would allow us to meet their needs.

We also have taken several other actions that the member for Scarborough North would be aware of to help our students, particularly our students who are most in need. We continue to move forward to an income-contingent loans package that will help us meet all those needs.

Mr Curling: Your lack of financial support is threatening those institutions in a way that ensures Ontario will stay last, as I said to you before, in funding, out of all the provinces. We should be supporting a well-educated workforce, but this government is not committed to that.

Your proposal lacks consideration with regard to grants, an interest-free period from graduation during periods of unemployment, an improvement of the current OSAP situation, like not penalizing students who have to work part-time to meet the costs not met by the current loans formula that you are trying to propose.

Minister, what you have done is slammed the door on further education. I suggest to you that you are listening to only those you think are advising you. Will you consider our proposal that would give encouragement to those students who want to be further educated, and not penalize those who have a smaller income, by having a longer time to pay off those debts? Will you do that?

If I can point out to the member for Scarborough North, recently his federal cousins in the throne speech presented a couple of programs I think will be useful for post-secondary that were based on, or at least followed the example of Ontario, where we last year put in place the Ontario merit scholarships, which will help our best-performing excellent students in the province, and the Ontario student opportunity trust fund, a trust fund for the students most in need in the province, that has exceeded expectations and now sits at some $500 million.

These are programs your federal cousins have looked at and said, "These make sense for the students right across Canada." We'll continue to work hand in hand to get a better environment for our young people.

PETITIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 142,

An Act to revise the law related to Social Assistance by enacting the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, by repealing the Family Benefits Act, the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act and by amending several other Statutes; and

"Whereas Bill 142 and its regulations will have a direct and substantial impact on the lives of many people with disabilities and their families;

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

"To urge the government of Ontario to release the proposed regulations related to Bill 142 immediately, so there can be meaningful public discussion of the changes that will result from this legislation and to ensure that Bill 142 and its regulations are subject to extensive and public hearings across Ontario so that the people who are affected by this legislation and the related regulations are given adequate opportunity to be heard."

I have signed this petition.

ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have approximately 200 names on this petition. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas ownership of a domestic animal or pet is a responsibility, not a right; and

"Whereas owners have a responsibility to treat their domestic animals with care and utmost concern for their wellbeing; and

"Whereas cruelty to animals should be punished and sanctioned with fines, penalties and/or bans on animal ownership; and

"Whereas inspectors of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals should not be obstructed from carrying out their duties to investigate abuse or neglect;

"We, the undersigned, support the amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act."

I affix my signature.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition regarding Bill 160 to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I know the Minister of Education will want to hear it.

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further,

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and to be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Premier of Ontario.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, request that the Ministry of Environment and the government of Ontario take responsibility for the immediate cleanup of the fire site."

On behalf of my constituents, I add my name to theirs.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government has failed to address the root causes of waste, duplication and unnecessary administration in our health care system; and

"Whereas the provincial government has introduced Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, that makes it easier for employers to reduce the number of front-line staff and to lower their salaries and benefits and thus causing further deterioration in quality patient care; and

"Whereas Bill 136 also erodes the democratic process by tampering with collective agreements and potentially interfering with workers' choice of bargaining agents;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136, the Public Sector Transition Stability Act, and restructure the health care system in a safe, coordinated and rational way."

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition which is much like the last petition you heard from the member for Sarnia and deals with Bill 136. It's to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas Bill 136, the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act, 1997, will not meet its stated objective to facilitate collective bargaining in the event of mergers and amalgamations; and

"Further, if enacted, Bill 136 will interfere with free collective bargaining, impose a new bureaucratic and dictatorial regime, remove the right to fair and impartial arbitration of disputes and the right to strike; and

"Whereas the Ontario Labour Relations Board has a long and successful history of mediating labour disputes;

"Therefore, in the interest of maintaining and enhancing quality public services provided by dedicated public employees, we hereby petition the Ontario government to withdraw its proposed Bill 136 legislation and support a fair and workable system that will not disrupt the supply of public services to the community or the livelihoods of thousands of Ontarians."

I agree with this petition and I have signed it accordingly.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

"Whereas workers' health and safety must be protected in the province of Ontario, especially the right to refuse work which is likely to endanger a worker, the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to participate in joint health and safety committees; and

"Whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations help protect workers' health and safety and workers' rights in this area; and

"Whereas the government's discussion paper Review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act threatens workers' health and safety by proposing to deregulate the existing act and regulations to reduce or eliminate workers' health and safety rights and to reduce enforcement of health and safety laws by the Ministry of Labour; and

"Whereas workers must have a full opportunity to be heard about this proposed drastic erosion in their present protections from injuries and occupational diseases;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the present provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations. Further, we, the undersigned, demand that public hearings on the discussion paper be held in at least 20 communities throughout Ontario."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues, I sign my name to theirs.

HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to present a petition sent by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, 121 people from across this province, including two in my riding, supporting the hunting heritage in Ontario. I'm pleased to enter it to be a record of the Legislature of the province of Ontario.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the undersigned residents living in the city of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario are in need of a new regional acute care hospital situated in the city of Thunder Bay to provide the said residents with quality health care services in a modern and up-to-date acute care hospital; and

"Whereas the partial renovation and restructuring of the existing Port Arthur General Hospital, a 65-year-old outdated and antiquated hospital building, proposed by the health services review commission and the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario will not be suitable, adequate or proper to provide such quality health care services to the said residents; and

"Whereas the undersigned residents endorse and support the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital and the trustees of the hospital board in their vision of a new centrally located hospital to serve the northwestern Ontario region;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reverse the decision and direction of the health services review commission and the Minister of Health to have all acute care services for the city of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario region delivered from the renovated and restructured site of Port Arthur General Hospital and to endorse and approve capital funding to build a new centrally located acute care hospital in the city of Thunder Bay."

Once again, this is signed by several hundred constituents in my riding, and I've affixed my signature in full agreement.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition regarding the need for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton. It's signed by constituents in my riding in the streets of Picton West, Hughson Street North, Bay Street North, Victoria, MacNab and Macauley. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy and Environment Canada jointly: (1) to conduct a full-scale public inquiry into the Hamilton Plastimet fire to determine the complete nature and extent of the pollution it has caused, the health effects on firefighters and others attending the fire, as well as residents in Hamilton and farther afield; and (2) to ensure safe, speedy and complete cleanup of the fire site, plus residential and all other areas where chemicals from the fire have fallen out."

I add my name to those of my constituents.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 44 people.

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The people of Ontario are very concerned about the threat of privatization of TVOntario and petitions are coming in from all across the province calling for public consultation before any decision is made. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVO as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold open and honest public consultation with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVO."

This is sent to me by Susanne Marquardt from Thunder Bay. I am very grateful for that and I am very pleased to sign my name to that petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a further petition.

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to reduce taxes by 30%; and

"Whereas this government has proceeded to reduce the level of public health care service through the hospital restructuring committee; and

"Whereas complementary legislation such as Bill 7, Bill 26 and Bill 136 are turning the negotiation process into a one-sided sham; and

"Whereas the morale of these front-line health care employees has hit rock bottom;

"We, the undersigned organized staff in the Sarnia-Lambton health care sector and members of the carpenters' Local 1256 and users of health care, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To withdraw Bill 136 and to re-establish the funding and level of service in the health care sector."

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition signed by a number of people from the west end of Toronto and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Consequently, I am proud to affix my signature to this document.

ABORTION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 253 people.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS (N O 2)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 149,

An Act to continue the reforms begun by the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 and to make other amendments respecting the financing of local governments / Projet de loi 149, Loi continuant les réformes amorcées par la Loi de 1997 sur le financement équitable des municipalités et apportant d'autres modifications relativement au financement des administrations locales.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I rise at a very turbulent time in the life of this particular government, the Harris regime. Over the past two weeks we have seen major retreats on issues. In fact, the other day when the Premier stood in the House with a lot of bravado and bluster and denounced what he called the union bosses, and then the Minister of Labour got up and capitulated to all of the demands which had been made, legitimately, by representatives of working people in this province, I wondered whether I was looking at reality. But what I could hear in the background was the bugle of retreat sounding, the white flag flying on the other side of the House.

A lot of people would condemn the government for that. I don't condemn the government for capitulating on this very significant bill. They brought in a bill which had a lot of very tough provisions. The Premier went around the province telling everybody how he was going to put labour in its place. Various members of the government went around the province and they were telling their friends in the big business community and the contributors to their campaign how at long last here was a government that was going to put those public service workers in their place.

What the government found out was that the people who work in the public service have neighbours and friends and relatives and family, and people recognize the significant role they play in our province, and the government began to see itself diving in the polls. Every one of the public opinion polls saw the government diving in support. So despite the hard-line, right-wing Conservatives who support the Reform Party federally and who are very concerned about this issue, the Premier totally capitulated, and I want to compliment the Premier.

I don't often compliment the Premier in this House, but I want to compliment the Premier on his total capitulation to what he calls the union bosses. I don't call them that. I, of course, call them the elected representatives of working people in this province, but the Premier calls them union bosses.

He reminded me the other day of -- the members for Oakville South and Wellington won't remember this because they're too young, but the Minister of Agriculture might remember -- Phineas T. Bluster. Mr Bluster, they called him in the TV show called Howdy Doody. I hear it's coming back now. Phineas T. Bluster would be all bluster. There really wasn't much substance there, there really wasn't much backbone there, but Phineas T. Bluster would get up and bluster all the time. That's what I thought I saw a week ago Thursday. I was flabbergasted, because I saw the Premier get up in as tough a stance as I've seen --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is not Howdy Doody time; it's debate on Bill 149. I have yet to hear, in four minutes of debate, any reference to the bill. I was wondering if you could bring the speaker on topic.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Thank you for your help. I would remind the member for St Catharines -- the rules are very clear on that -- he should speak to the bill.

Mr Bradley: I always like to put this in context of the total government program, and it's always nice to have the YPCs, the Young Progressive Conservatives, the most right wing of the right wing, those who are aspiring to be in the cabinet, rise to point out the fact that perhaps a speaker on the opposition side isn't as much on topic as he might be. The problem is it's usually, as the member for Fort York will agree, when an opposition member is making a salient point, is really revealing to the public of Ontario what's going on.

I'm just wondering, having seen the government do a full retreat on Bill 136, whether it intends to do the same on Bill 149, the so-called Fair Municipal Finance Act. I'm not convinced yet, but I see some evidence, and I hear the beeping of the truck moving backwards, because you want to signal when you're backing up. I hear some evidence that in this municipal field, the government may be backing down as well.

The relentless questioning by members of the opposition has taken its toll on the government ministers and on the Premier. I know that. All of our colleagues at the municipal level of government, some of them good Conservatives, have been attacking this government for attempting to download responsibilities which legitimately are those of the provincial government on to the local level of government. The government is obviously feeling that heat and I suspect we're going to see some capitulation.

Indeed, with these special kitties they've put aside, these special funds, no doubt they will be coming forth as benevolent uncles, giving money to Brockville, Ontario, where they're closing down the psychiatric hospital.

I well recall the statement of a good friend of mine in this House, Bob Runciman, who is the member for Leeds-Grenville and the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. I read in the paper what his mother had to say about the closing of that hospital. I can't think of anybody who was more accurate in her assessment of what this government was doing. I'm glad to see that she wouldn't be intimidated by the fact that her son -- I'm sure she's very proud of him, and should be -- is in the cabinet. In fact there are some in the government benches who suggested that her son wrote the statement. I can't believe that. I will not believe that.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It's not true.

Mr Bradley: Noble Villeneuve says it's not true -- I'll take his word for it -- that the member for Leeds-Grenville actually said that about the closing of the psychiatric hospital.

I vary from the topic. I'm mindful of the member for Nepean, who wants to keep me on topic now that he has reduced my speaking time to 20 minutes on any particular bill. Through his prompting of the government, through his effort to ingratiate himself with the Premier, he has had the rules of this House changed so that the government can whistle through its legislation in record time.

What you have to watch with this as well is that it must be taken in the context of all the downloading. I was talking to someone in St Catharines the other day who has a child on a travelling team or an all-star hockey team. That person said that just to get on the ice now it is some $800. The Speaker, the member for Etobicoke West, mentioned a figure in the amount of $1,100 simply to be able to get on the ice. That's for all-star hockey. What this means is that if you're the child of a rich person in the province, you're going to be able to play all-star hockey, but if you are the child of a person with a modest income, the people this government has forgotten, then it's just too bad.

I don't believe we're going to be able to provide a Cadillac for everybody. I don't believe you can provide a $5-million mansion for everybody to live in. I don't think people can all wear -- what is it they wear? -- $2,500 suits or something like that. This suit here is far less than that, I can assure you. I don't think you can do that, but I do believe we should have equal opportunity for youngsters in our community to make it.

I am fearful that when this bill passes, not just by itself but in the context of the major downloading taking place, we will see a further division in our province, with the rich, the powerful and the privileged receiving the great benefits and the rest simply having to make do with the minimum of benefits that might be available to people in this province.

That's most unfortunate, because while I think Ontarians want to see everybody who can do so working hard to be able to move ahead, to be able to provide for themselves -- I think all people agree with that -- they are concerned when they see that people who are unable to do so are shunted to the sidelines.

I mentioned in a statement yesterday that I attended on Saturday, along with the member for Welland-Thorold, at Club Social on East Main Street in Welland, a forum sponsored by People First Welland. It had people from all over the province. These are people with disabilities and these are people who are extremely apprehensive about some of the legislative and regulatory changes they're seeing in the province.

This government would miscalculate if it were to do damage to these people in any way, because while I say there may not be sympathy out there for those who are unprepared to look after themselves and are capable of doing so, there is a good deal of empathy and support for people who are disabled in some way or other and are trying to cope with that disability or are trying to overcome that disability. "Every time we put a new user fee on people, that is a tax." Who said that? Well, I didn't say it. Mike Harris, the now Premier of Ontario, when he was leader of the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party, said to the people of this province, "A user fee is a tax."

On that basis this government has probably been responsible for several thousand tax increases in this province since it came to office, since these user fees have been increased both by this government and by municipalities that have had no other choice except to raise user fees. If you are wealthy, if you are privileged, if you are powerful and if you don't have a social conscience, if you are in all those categories and you don't have a social conscience, then that means you should be happy with this government.

I am always amazed at the number of government members, the family coalition caucus, I call them, the family values caucus, who walk out of church on Sunday morning with their pious faces and say, "I am a moral and good and ethical person," but when it comes to implementing that which has been taught in church in a variety of fields, they sometimes forget the rest of it, that it is not simply living the pious life that is important, the moral life that is important, but it is also important --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Madam Speaker, on point of order: If you were paying close attention to what the member for St Catharines was just saying, I think he's impugning motive.

The Acting Speaker: I have to admit I didn't hear what he said. I was distracted here for a moment. If the member has anything to apologize for, I would ask him to do so. If not, there's nothing I can do. I didn't hear him.

Mr Bradley: I was not at all impugning motives. I thought that anyone this applied to might get up to object, but others out there, I'm sure, would not worry about it. Anyone who didn't get up to object would say that it wouldn't apply to them. I'm sure of that.

I'm really perturbed by this because I simply ask how it is that people can come out -- we all know the teachings of the churches. We have had the letter from Bishop Asbil of the Anglican Church, the Bishop of Niagara, who wrote an open letter to the Premier expressing his objection to the way the Premier was dealing with social issues in the province. I read that letter into the record. I happen to know Bishop Asbil and I have a good deal of respect for him. People from the other churches have put out letters expressing concern about what the government is doing, what its agenda is all about.

The point I'm making is that you can't simply wear the label of churchman or churchwoman and then come out and not live that life, not remember that which is taught in church. I think that's important. There is a service, an empathy for others that is learned through the teachings in various churches in this province. I think it's important that those who wear the family values label are able to also remember those who are less fortunate than themselves, because it's really very important for all of us to remember that we do so.

When I see the downloading that is part of this total platform -- and the member who intervenes, I remember when he intervened when they were going to close his hospital -- St Mary's hospital was it? I think it was. He said he was very thankful to that hospital for saving his life. I know there are many people around this province who have hospitals they feel equally strongly about, that they believe should not be closed. That's why I know he will join me in holding the Premier of this province to the promise that he made during the 1995 election campaign, when he said, "Certainly, Robert," referring to Robert Fisher of Global TV, "I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals."

I join my friends from the Kitchener-Waterloo area in fighting to keep that hospital open. I commend the member for speaking out on that and I join him in wanting to keep his hospital open.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: My good friend from Lambton intervenes and mentions the words "video lottery terminal."

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): No, no, no.

Mr Bradley: I heard an interjection from someone who mentioned it. Let me say, this bill mentions charities occupying industrial or commercial lands. I don't know if that refers to charity casinos or not, but I do know that in the realm of assessment and taxation -- the Speaker wants me to be on topic -- the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, faced with over 50 municipalities that said, "We don't want the electronic slot machines in our area," said: "If you take them, I've got a deal for you.

I've got $1,500 per machine for you, so you might get over $200,000 and your charities will benefit." The Minister of Municipal Affairs said, "Woe betide those municipalities that don't accept these charity casinos," because they're not going to get the so-called benefits of them. I see that in this bill. I see a reference made in this bill to it.

I know that our municipality, St Catharines, has said: "We'll have none of the hush money, we'll have none of the conscience money, we'll have none of the blood money that comes with the installation of video lottery terminals, electronic slot machines, that prey upon the most vulnerable people, the most desperate people in our society, the most addicted people to gambling. We'll have none of that. Even though we're experiencing a downloading of responsibility and millions of dollars of additional costs for municipalities to assume, we don't want those machines. We don't want machines that will prey upon the most vulnerable people in our society."

Conrad Black won't be playing video lottery terminals if he comes into one of the ridings where there's video lottery terminals. Trevor Eyton isn't going to play them. Conrad Black isn't going to play them. Bill Gates, when he comes to Canada, won't be playing them. But people who are desperate, people who are not well connected to the rich and the powerful and the privileged, who don't have the same opportunity as others, in desperation often turn to gambling when the opportunity presents itself.

By extending that opportunity, by escalating and expanding the gambling avenues in this province, this government is encouraging that. It is doing so to make up for the loss of revenue that exists in the budget because you are giving an income tax cut of 30% which will benefit the most wealthy in our society to the largest extent.

I hear government members say: "The revenues are still coming in. Boy, you should see the revenues coming in." I'll tell you where they're coming from. They're coming from gambling. The price we pay socially, the price we pay in the tearing of our social fabric through this constant escalation of gambling opportunities, is a price which I believe is too high to justify the money which will come into the coffers of the province.

I find this bill to be part of the general agenda of this government, which is why I felt it was necessary to expand beyond the specific confines and provisions of this bill, to put it in the context of the total government program which is being presented to this Legislature in record time.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Responding to the member for St Catharines, I appreciate his understanding of the need to put this, and quite frankly any other piece of legislation that has gone through this Parliament since Bill 26, in the broader context. These are all pieces of a puzzle and this government had better start to understand that the image contained in that puzzle is starting to become more and more apparent to more and more people across this whole province.

Just this last Saturday, Jim Bradley, the member for St Catharines, and I were down at the Club Social in Welland where People First, an organization, a movement, I tell you, of persons with disabilities had organized a conference. There were people there from all over Ontario gathering down in Welland at the Club Social.

They were people who spoke on behalf of themselves, on behalf of their families, on behalf of their communities about their concern and their intimate familiarity with the serious impact this government's downloading is going to have on people's lives in Welland and Thorold and Pelham and St Catharines and Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Port Colborne et al across this province; how this government's abandonment of community is going to hurt communities, is going to hurt families and is going to hurt individuals, and as often as not the most vulnerable of individuals, people who historically and systemically have been marginalized, who have been struggling with great courage and tenacity to find their rightful place in the mainstream, who now find themselves being shoved off to the side once again.

Property taxpayers in Welland and Thorold, across Niagara, understand that this government's downloading is going to result in property tax increases of literally hundreds of dollars. This government's abandonment of social housing, of non-profit housing, of co-op housing, which has been so successful in Niagara region and so important for so many families and so many mothers and their kids and working people and, yes, the unemployed and seniors, is going to be thrown to the wolves, is going to be thrown to the private sector.

This government's abandonment of community and family is a tragedy that will take decades and generations to overcome, but my people in Welland and Thorold are ready for that --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further questions and comments?

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to rise and bring the debate to Bill 149. The members for St Catharines and Welland-Thorold will know about the very important thing in this bill, the item in terms of international bridges and tunnels. In fact, when we came to Port Colborne to talk about these measures in the finance bill, we realized how important it was to allow for the expansion, in fact the twinning, of the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie, a $200-million expansion plan on track.

If the government hadn't acted courageously -- I think a theme of this government is to make decisions that have been left on the back burner for decades. Previous governments -- the Liberal government under Peterson, the NDP-Howard Hampton-Bob Rae government, and even the PC governments before that, to be fair -- didn't act until you had a hodgepodge of taxation systems. Each bridge and tunnel was taxed differently from the next.

The Peace Bridge faced a great deal of tax uncertainty; they didn't know what their taxes were going to be from one year to the next. Certainly, if you're going to be raising a $200-million capital plan, you can see the jeopardy in which that would put that project. By acting decisively in clearing up that entanglement, we've seen that the bridge will now be paying its fair share, its full share, of municipal property taxes and it's going ahead with that project.

The member for St Catharines is well aware that one John Lopinski, well known in Liberal circles, in fact a former candidate in Niagara South, has been praising the government for its decisive action on this issue. It's allowing for the bridge to expand, and when the bridge expands that means more trade, more tourism and more jobs for Niagara. By acting, it's a good thing coming to Niagara. When you hear John Lopinski, of all people, talking about the importance of this bill and that it's a good bill -- I know his son, Bob Lopinski, works in the Liberal back offices and makes a lot of the calls.

I think Bob will convince the member for St Catharines and the rest in the House to listen to the wisdom of his father and support this bill.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The value of the comments of the member for St Catharines is that he was able to take the few strands that are in Bill 149 and show how they relate to the entire agenda and the tax policy of this government.

The member for St Catharines, though, has quite rightly indicated that it's a little bit difficult for us to debate a Conservative Mike Harris government bill on taxation because they keep changing their definition of taxes. How do we talk about the entire agenda of the Harris government on taxes? The member for St Catharines remembers that Mike Harris used to say a user fee is a tax, yet we see no concerted policy to control the increased taxes through increased user fees -- just the opposite. We see constantly escalating user fees.

I remember when Mike Harris used to say there's only one taxpayer in Ontario. Quite clearly he's forgotten that because his sole focus for any of his so-called reforms is to deliver a tax cut on the income tax side, and in order to do that he is prepared to dump millions of dollars on to the property tax base. Beyond that, Mike Harris is proposing to tax property directly for educational purposes, something we've never seen before.

I think the member for St Catharines quite rightly asks, "Who benefits from the income tax cut?" It is the people who have the largest incomes, the most well-to-do. They're the ones who are going to get the most money in their pockets. But how about that other taxpayer, the property taxpayer, the one Mike Harris is going to dump on? Who is going to be hurt most by the dumping on property taxpayers? It's going to be the seniors whom the government is going to offer some short-term protection to and have them incur debt, which is going to be extremely troublesome to seniors.

It's going to be that middle-income family struggling to buy and to hold on to a home of their own. They're the ones who are going to pay the price for the property tax dump along with those who are paying the price of the tax grab through gambling that the member for St Catharines has acknowledged.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I listened to the presentation made by the member for St Catharines. He's perfectly right on a number of points, but particularly when it comes to the one-taxpayer argument. This government, the Conservative Party of Ontario, in the last election and prior to that made the argument, I would say convincingly, that there was only one taxpayer, and that we had to respect that taxpayer at all costs.

With this bill, along with its companion bill that we passed previous to this -- I think it was Bill 106 -- this government is allowing municipalities, because of what they're doing in downloading -- not "allowing." It's not even the right word. This government by way of Bill 149, by way of Bill 106, by way of Bill 126, the omnibus bill, by way of all of the downloading, by way of the cuts to transfer payments to municipalities, is offloading a whole bunch of costs on to municipalities. Who's going to pay for that in the end? It's going to be the municipal taxpayer.

We've listened, as the member for St Catharines has, a number of times when the ministers of the crown and the Premier stand up and try to make people believe in this assembly, as they're trying to make the people of Ontario believe, that people's municipal property taxes will go down. I listened intently with surprise when the Minister of Education today stated in this House that as a result of his government's actions, property taxpayers would see their bill go down by 50%. What planet is this Minister of Education living on?

We know what's going on. The residents of municipalities across Ontario know what's going on. Mayors and councils know what's going on. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario knows what's going on. You guys are in the biggest downloading exercise this province and this country have ever seen and it means in the end that municipal ratepayers will both lose services and see their taxes go up. When the government argues that there's only one taxpayer, what a twist of fate that was in that particular promise.

Mr Bradley: I thank all the members for their contribution. The member for Welland-Thorold recounted the Saturday afternoon we spent listening to people with disabilities and the many challenges they have to face and how they see user fees and other changes in government policy as potentially being detrimental to their wellbeing.

When the member for Niagara South rose, I thought for sure he was going to mention the Port Colborne hospital and the Fort Erie hospital, Douglas Memorial, both under threat of closing because this government has cut so much in the way of hospital operating funding. I truly expected him to get up to speak about that because I know in his heart of hearts he probably shares my concern about that. But you know what happens: When you preach the Mike Harris revolution, part of the Mike Harris revolution is closing those hospitals and saving money so he can give a tax cut to the most wealthy people in our province.

I also want to thank the member for Fort William, who understood my speech very well and the context in which it was delivered. She recognizes, as I do, that the problem with dumping these responsibilities financially on to the property tax is that both the property tax and user fees do not take into account a person's ability to pay. So lower-income people, whether they like it or not, are stuck paying these huge fee increases or property tax increases. Or if a person who has been doing all right happens to have a couple of bad years because of bad health or something or is unemployed, that person is going to have to pay those huge increases in property taxes.

I am amused when I hear the Minister of Education say that municipal property taxes are going to drop by 50%, because I remember it was the Premier who said that as a result of all this reshuffling we would see a 10% decrease in taxes. Now it's up to 50%.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's always a pleasure to have a couple of minutes to speak on any bill this government introduces. I recall that this government is introducing almost a bill a day. This is a party, this revolutionary party, that never sleeps. It is a party that never ceases to continue working, and I tell you it's a problem for us, because if you don't have the time to reflect on what you're doing, you're likely to cause a hell of a lot of chaos in Ontario. They're doing that daily.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Look who's talking.

Mr Marchese: Look who's talking? I'm talking about you. I'm talking about you and your government and the haste with which you proceed to pass these bills daily in this place. This bill, like all your other bills, claims to be a Fair Municipal Finance Act. This bill too, like Bill 106, claims to be fair. This fair bill is going to whack everybody again in Ontario like Bill 106, which gave a big whack and they'll feel that whack as they reassess property taxes. A system they call actual value assessment, commonly known as market value assessment, is going to whack a whole lot of people in the province.

This comes from a minister, mon ami M. Leach, who before the election in 1995 said, "No way are we ever going to introduce a system that's market value." So they introduced a neat thing. They called it "actual value assessment" so M. Leach and M. Harris can claim: "We're not introducing market value. That's not what we've got. Look at the bill. It says `actual value assessment.'"

That's not it at all. We know that is a hoax. We know it and other people have told them as much. You've got to give them some credit. These people are unwavering and they speak with a straight face. I know the Minister of Labour does it all the time. She speaks with a straight face. She's always so concerned about workers and she's working on prevention. The poor woman never tires of talking about how she worries for all the people she is hurting on a daily basis.

Remember Bill 106, and we've got to bring it in context. It is always a critical thing to do, because this government likes to isolate bills. There's a fine thread that is attached to each and every one of them. Bill 106 calls for the reassessment of all Ontario properties by April 1998, the largest single reassessment ever imagined in North America.

Some of the people in the ministry said, "We are very worried." It was the assistant deputy minister who said, "The ministry is aware that the division cannot deliver the reassessments in the time frame set by the government and still carry out day-to-day assessment operations with its current permanent staffing level." This poor deputy realized that they don't have the resources to deal with the reassessment of four million properties. But this government in its haste, because it's a revolutionary party without a pause, doesn't care about consequences of its policies.

It just, with its fast train, goes along those tracks and never wavers. The poor deputy says: "We can't do it. We've got a job to do in our own system, and to take other people who are doing this reassessment of so many other things we're doing -- we can't do this job." But the government doesn't seem to care about that.

What has the ministry done to protect itself? It has hired close to 500 temporary staff on short-term contracts to keep up with the additional load. Many of the workers have little experience in the assessment field. That's part of the danger, that as we hire a whole lot of people to do this work, we are not sure of the quality of work we're getting. This contracting out, in my view and in the view of many, puts the reassessment quality at risk as untrained individuals are hired to do that job. Contractors who are hired receive only one day of training from the ministry, after which they may hire and train inspectors to do the work.

Look at the kind of qualifications that are asked of these people. "Residential data collector: We require a highly organized, self-motivated individual to complete resident inspections in the Halton-Peel region. The successful candidate must have excellent communication skills, neat appearance and a reliable car. General knowledge of residential home construction required. Contract position. Send résumé immediately." That's the extent of the knowledge that is required of these poor people.

The ministry has decided to spare no expense in its haste to do as many reassessments as possible in a short time frame. We're risking a lot of quality work as we hire people who don't know how to do the job of reassessing properties.

In addition to that, what have we done? Ostensibly to free up staff for the work of reassessment, the government then contracted out the municipal enumeration. On January 31 of this year the contract for the job was awarded to a consortium of three companies led by Amex Canada -- American Express. There have been to my knowledge no public discussions of what it means to hand over enumeration records to one of the world's leading credit card companies. But this Conservative government has no problem with things of that nature. They don't mind hiring companies of this sort. They don't think through the consequences of the actions they take.

We looked at the business occupancy tax, and we need to speak about this because everything is in the context of what they are offloading and dumping on to municipalities. Recall that the business occupancy tax takes $1.6 billion out of the system. It will wipe out that amount of money in municipal revenues in one fell swoop and leaves the responsibility of that shortfall on the municipality. I'm not sure if some of the people on the other side understand what that means. It means the municipality is left with a big burden. In Metro Toronto alone, it means $600 million of that $1.6 billion has to be recovered in some way. That's a problem.

If you recall, and we spoke about this in the past, yes, this might be outdated, given that it was something that was introduced in 1904, but it's difficult to explain why they would get rid of a system that was progressive in nature and replace it with something that we have no clue about how it's going to be repaid.

What do I mean by a system progressive in nature? The business occupancy tax assured us that those who were making money, like banks, were paying a higher rate of tax than someone who owned, let us say, an abattoir or a barbershop. That's a progressive tax system, as outdated as it was. But these people take that away and then say to the municipality, "We are leaving this responsibility to you to fix."

The province looks good with the banks, good corporate friends of these guys over there, these Tory guys, but leaves an incredible burden on the municipality to find a way to replace that money. There are only two sources: the residential property tax base or the small retail, the little business people that these people here claim to represent. One of the members there laughs smugly.

Mr Ford: Propaganda.

Mr Marchese: Propaganda? Member from -- where are you from? Let me find you. Douglas Ford, Etobicoke-Humber. The propaganda doesn't come from me --

Mr Ford: From your results -- $55 billion, answer that question, over and above the budget.

Mr Marchese: I don't know. I'm talking about the business occupancy tax and he's mumbling about something. I don't know what it is.

I'm saying to you, you've got to answer to that, because you are the fine people who said that people are overtaxed and that you had to relieve these taxpayers of the burden of other governments. Well, you fine Tory members are taking out the business occupancy tax and leaving a big burden to municipalities which then have to pass on that cost to somebody else.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): Oh, say it like it is, Rosario.

Mr Marchese: M. Palladini, mon chère ami, that's a fact. M. Palladini, mon ami, what are you saying? M. Villeneuve, talk to him. Am I wrong in my assessment of this?

Hon Mr Palladini: Ask the businessmen in your community.

Mr Marchese: I asked the businessmen in my community, to Mr Palladini, my friend, the Minister of Transportation. Business people in Toronto are worried that they're going to be whacked with your fair tax bill. Either they are wrong or somehow you haven't communicated to them how they are wrong. Perhaps in your communication package you haven't had an opportunity to be clear with them. Clear it with them; you don't have to clear it with me. It is business people all over Toronto whom I am connected to who are worried about picking up the cost of the business occupancy tax. You might think I'm inventing this.

That's all right for you to believe that, but you have to square this off with your small business friends. We're worried about the impact it will have because it will force many of the small business people to leave.

Look at the download bill, Bill 152. What an enormous burden to place on municipalities and what a burden to leave to the taxpayer. These guys talk about the taxpayer all the time. This municipal download is going to hurt a whole lot of people, because look what they're picking up in the disentanglement process. I don't think they understand the word, because in the download bill they have confused it all and there is no disentanglement.

That's perhaps why they don't use the word, because I don't believe they understand it. They haven't disentangled a thing. In fact they have downloaded a whole lot of things to the municipalities. They've downloaded libraries completely. They've downloaded social housing completely to the municipal taxpayer, community police financing, the integration of the farm tax rebate, the homes for special care, community ferries, municipal services, fire services and sewer and water inspections, social assistance program partnerships, child care services.

All these things are downloaded to the municipal taxpayer, homeowners who are taxpayers, friends of these guys. They've got to pick up a big load to pay for the burden that these fine people are passing down to them, all the while claiming that the taxpayer somehow is going to save money.

There is no savings in this. There is no logic. There is nothing but lunacy in these policies, because to pass down these costs to the municipal taxpayer isn't lunacy; it's beyond lunacy. These are responsibilities of provincial governments that raise money through a progressive tax system, as progressive as it can be in a capitalist system where those who've got a whole lot of money know how to hide the money, which means that the middle classes, your taxpayer friends, who can't escape paying taxes are stuck with the burden.

The working class and the working poor are stuck with the heavy burden of social housing, social assistance, child care, libraries, ambulances and on and on. The list is endless.

Then they come up with a bill, this fair bill, that's going to whack a whole lot of people, whack municipalities. Let me give you an example from this bill in terms of how they're doing it. It speaks of rebates to charities and similar organizations:

"A regulation-making power is added to the Municipal Act to permit local municipal