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

December 2, 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

L254a - Tue 2 Dec 1997 / Mar 2 Déc 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

EDUCATION REFORM

SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC HEALTH

AMETHYST AWARDS

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE

EDUCATION REFORM

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

WEARING OF RED RIBBONS

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1997

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEFERRED VOTES

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PUBLIC HEALTH

EDUCATION FINANCING

PROPERTY TAXATION

QUINTUPLÉES DIONNE / DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

CASINO WINDSOR

EMERGENCY SERVICES

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHARITABLE GAMING

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

CHARITABLE GAMING

ABORTION

EDUCATION REFORM

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

EDUCATION REFORM

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION REFORM

PAY EQUITY

LONG-TERM CARE

PAY EQUITY

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today in the Legislature to urge the government to take action and ensure that Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, be passed in a timely fashion before the end of this session.

On Thursday, October 17, 1996, I introduced Bill 83 during private members' business. This proposed legislation ensures that consumers will not be asked to pay for services they did not request. In essence, this proposes to end what is known as negative option billing, a practice that has received widespread media attention and has raised the ire of consumers across Canada.

Bill 83 puts the consumer first. It's up to businesses to market their products positively. If the service they are offering is confusing, then businesses have an obligation to explain it and let the consumers decide whether they want it or not. This is the free market in action, people making choices, informed choices. Unfortunately, unscrupulous businesses have used the practice of negative billing to rip off customers and will continue to do so until legislation is put forth to end this. Not informing and not giving customers the choice is simply not fair.

I've been waiting for over a year for this bill to move out of the committee stage and for it to return to the House for a final vote. I have worked, in cooperation with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, to amend Bill 83, and it has received all-party support.

Because I believe it is a very important piece of legislation, I ask the government today to bring this bill forward.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to thank all those who went to the wall over the last number of weeks on Bill 160: the parents, school boards, school administrators, other community individuals and groups and brothers and sisters in the labour movement.

Your presence at rallies, meetings, hearings and on the picket lines were invaluable in the effort to slow this government down so that the broader public might have a chance at more fully understanding the implications of Bill 160.

It became obvious to all of us that what Bill 160 is about is diminishing seriously the resources available to educate all of the children of Ontario in keeping with our commitment over the years as a province to provide all people with the opportunity to be the best that they can be.

Bill 160 will give the government the tools they need to remove another $700 million to $1 billion from elementary and secondary education in this province.

Today I, on behalf of my caucus, say thank you and put out a warning to you to be vigilant, because in one of the groups to be hurt are those we care so much about and they are our special education students. Mike, Dave and government caucus members, we will not stand for that. That is completely unacceptable morally, ethically and practically.

We must continue the fight. We must ask the tough questions. We must keep the government's feet to the fire. I ask you to participate in the petition referendum campaign.

SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Last Friday, the minister responsible for women's issues announced $660,000 in grants to organizations and groups across the province. The grants are for programs and projects to prevent violence against women and their children, promote women's economic self-sufficiency and help women through the transition from crisis situations to economic self-sufficiency.

I'm pleased that two organizations from the riding of Perth were included in the announcement. Optimism Place in Stratford will receive funding to develop a model to improve and complement existing services available to abused women in rural areas and to provide a peer support program. Women in Rural Economic Development, also known as WRED, also of Stratford, will receive funding to assist rural participants to acquire business skills through training and practical experience as well as to establish two cooperative community businesses.

These two agencies have done wonders for the women of Perth county and the surrounding areas. They have set a standard in their program development. I encourage others to take note of it.

As the government we have made a commitment to safety and wellbeing of people of the province. In supporting these programs, we are fulfilling a part of that commitment. I would like to congratulate the minister for encouraging innovative solutions to support women in their communities and members of WRED and Optimism Place for making these programs work for the women of Perth county.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): This week is inauguration week for the over 600 municipalities in Ontario. Yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the inaugural meeting of the council for the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, led by the former member for Ottawa West and now regional chair, Bob Chiarelli, and the inaugural meeting of the council of the city of Ottawa, led by my former colleague on that council and now mayor, Jim Watson. As well, inaugural meetings were held in the city of Nepean, led by Mayor Mary Pitt, and in Gloucester, led by Mayor Claudette Cain.

Amidst the celebrations accompanying the inaugurations were words of warning regarding the challenges facing municipal councils and their taxpayers over the downloading of provincial services as a result of Bill 152, including words of warning from my colleague regional chair Chiarelli, who said, "This council will be severely challenged this year because of provincial downloading and internal pressures to keep taxes from going up." The cost of Bill 152 to municipal taxpayers was an election issue throughout Ontario. Now we have new municipal councils with new mandates but no new numbers showing the full impact of Bill 152 on municipal taxpayers.

I call upon this government to meet with the new municipal councils and come clean with the cost of Bill 152 to municipal taxpayers so that they can make the appropriate decisions to maintain the services taxpayers need. We heard plan A back in January, plan B back in May, plan C in August. We hear there's a plan D. Come clean with the taxpayers of Ontario and talk to your municipal councils.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): With the anticipated passage of Bill 152, public health will be downloaded to local municipalities. This indeed will have a negative impact on delivery services, especially in northern Ontario.

Some programs will be cancelled. Speech pathology and audiological services will be a thing of the past. Northerners, one more time, will have to pay more just to obtain the same services that most people around here, namely southerners, take for granted. Health care providers in my constituency call our office daily. They're exasperated by this government's determination to cut services.

The community of Longlac, for example, is desperate for a family physician to provide the most essential of services to the people of that community.

The community of Geraldton, located some 300 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, is on the waiting list for ambulance calls simply because there aren't enough beds available in the largest urban centre, that of Thunder Bay. This is inexcusable.

Furthermore, decisions are made in the back room, in the Premier's office, with little care given to the essential service, that of health. Northerners have contributed to the public purse and have fought and waited for decades to be treated like human beings. The opportunity is there. The wait is ours. We've waited too long.

AMETHYST AWARDS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I rise today to alert the House that this is the fifth year of Amethyst Awards, which are being presented on December 3. The Amethyst Awards are presented for outstanding achievement by Ontario public servants. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two of my constituents who were part of a seven-member team being distinguished this year for their efforts within the Ministry of Transportation.

The Amethyst Awards give us time to reflect on the varied accomplishments of Ontario public servants and the roles they play in improving the lives of the people of Ontario. I wish to congratulate my constituents and their team for their efforts in improving the data management of accident reports. Thank you.

HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As the Conservative government of Mike Harris continues to make major cuts in hospital funding in the Niagara region and urges hospitals to discharge patients more quickly and more sickly, a crisis in home care services has arisen, with patients being informed that the frequency and number of such services will be reduced significantly.

As a result, visits from community nurses and rehabilitation personnel such as physiotherapists will be reduced and homemaking hours will be cut. Many patients and their families will be unable to cope with these circumstances and the additional suffering will mean a return to hospital or to long-term-care beds.

The Harris government has squandered millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on self-serving political propaganda advertising but penny-pinches when it comes to care for our seniors and others who are vulnerable in terms of personal health.

The Niagara District Health Council found in a study in 1994 that the Niagara region would need $16 million in extra funding annually to bring per capita spending on community health services up to the provincial average. The Harris government has fallen far short of this need and the vulnerable will suffer as a result of the Conservative government's desire to pay for an income tax cut that benefits the wealthiest in our province the most.

Mike Harris and the unelected whiz kids in his office must instruct the Minister of Finance to allocate sufficient funds to the minister responsible for seniors to meet these genuine human needs in Niagara and across Ontario.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yesterday might have marked the third reading vote on Bill 160 and government members may think that this issue has gone away never to come back again, but that is not the case. People across this province are rallying together in communities from northern to southern Ontario, from eastern to western Ontario, banding together along with the New Democratic Party to put together a petition to put this government under the pressure it needs to be put under, in order to have a referendum on this most public, important issue.

In point of fact, on Friday of last week, my colleague Len Wood and I were in Hearst kicking off the referendum campaign. On the very first day, over 10% of the population of Hearst had signed that petition and I'm confident that that kind of progress will continue.

The campaign continues. On Saturday of this week, on December 6, from 9 o'clock in the morning until 12 o'clock in the afternoon, people will be coming to the Timmins Gold Mine Tour to participate in picking up their petitions in order to get together, in order to organize, in order to mobilize, in order to find out more about what's going on with this government's education agenda.

I invite all those people that are watching across the province, and particularly those living in the city of Timmins, to come on Saturday, December 6, from 9 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock in the morning at the Timmins Gold Mine Tour, in order to be able to mobilize and to pick up your petitions to participate in this most important referendum campaign.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today to speak on an important issue for all parents: pedophiles around our kids. This week I will be introducing my bill, the Protection against Pedophiles Act, for second reading.

Joseph Fredericks was on probation for abduction and assault. He was released into the Brampton community. He applied to coach junior baseball. In the meantime, he abducted, sexually assaulted and killed Christopher Stephenson. Minor hockey coach Graham James sexually assaulted many young boys, including NHLer Sheldon Kennedy. He had a position of trust over children and took advantage of that trust. Graham James and Joseph Fredericks are a parents' worst nightmares and there is nothing stopping pedophiles from being involved with children.

My bill requires any organization that has employees or volunteers looking after children to first obtain a letter from their local police force certifying that the applicant is not a convicted sexual offender. The applicant goes to the police station, signs a waiver to the police, pays a small fee and obtains a letter certifying that he or she does not have a sexual offender record. That letter is given to the employer or minor sports group.

Big Brothers and the Ontario Women's Hockey League already have such a procedure. The procedure is supported by Metropolitan Toronto Police and scores of police officers. My bill gives all minor sports and recreation groups a tool to try to protect our kids. I urge this House to support my protection against pedophiles bill.

WEARING OF RED RIBBONS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I request unanimous consent to wear the red ribbon symbolic of the fight against AIDS.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Unanimous consent to wear the ribbons? Agreed.

CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With your indulgence, I'd like to make a further submission with regard to the points of order raised earlier regarding whether or not Bill 164 is in order. The reason I'm raising this today, and I'll provide you a brief

summary in writing, is that I have received in my office a copy of a submission made by the government House leader to you with regard to the points of order raised previously in the House. I would just like to respond briefly to the issues raised in this matter.

The government House leader makes the argument that the point of order I raised originally under standing order 51 is not a problem because of precedents in this House. They refer to Bill 108, which is currently before the committee of the whole House. The government House leader argues that since an amendment that has been put by this party to Bill 108 in committee of the whole House was previously dealt with in the standing committee, if my argument holds, then that proceeding is out of order.

That ignores the fact that the very purpose of committee of the whole House is to go through clause by clause and deal with amendments. It's often, through precedent in this House, quite proper to deal with amendments that were previously debated and voted on in standing committees.

The fact is that on Bill 149, if the government wanted to make further amendments, all they had to do was go to committee of the whole House and they wouldn't. What they needed to do was bring in a new time allocation motion which would allow them to refer the bill to committee of the whole House. But they didn't want to do that because of what had happened with Bill 108.

The fact is that it's in committee of the whole House and the government doesn't want to deal with the amendments to that bill that are before the committee, and they didn't want this to happen to Bill 149 because they knew that by referring it to committee of the whole House for further amendment they were opening up the whole bill and they might have a major debate in committee of the whole House. Mr Speaker, I submit to you that their argument is specious with regard to Bill 149.

The other point I would make is that the government House leader argues that at one point Erskine May argues about whether or not a motion or a bill can be substantively the same. This is not about that. We are not dealing with a motion here; we're dealing with two bills. Erskine May makes the argument that a motion cannot be substantively the same as a bill. Well, fine. We're dealing with two bills here, which in my view deal with substantively the same issues, not a motion and a bill. So that is not applicable either.

Also the government House leader argues that Bill 164 doesn't really amend anything in a way that contradicts what has been done previously on Bill 149 or Bill 160. In fact they say these new amendments in Bill 164 simply add to the previous amendments.

I would just draw your attention to one final thing. Bill 164 amends amendments, in our view, made to Bill 149 which speak directly to standing order 51, which I cited previously. For instance,

schedule F,

section 3: "On the later of the day this

section comes into force and the day the Fair Municipal Finance Act, 1997 (No. 2), being Bill 149 of the first session of the 36th Legislature, receives royal assent,

section 71 of that act, as numbered in the version of Bill 149 reprinted as amended by the finance and economic affairs committee, is repealed," etc.

They're repealing a

section that was amended in the committee. Because the consideration of Bill 149 was time-allocated and the government had passed an arbitrary deadline that the government had laid out for itself for amending the bill, the government is attempting to bring in amendments by the back door, which is the original submission I made.

The standing committee considered this bill under the time allocation motion and made certain decisions regarding amendments. This is a similar situation to Bill 160. It was also time-allocated. The deadlines set by the government for amending this have been passed. As a matter of fact, we suggested they might be extended and the government House leader refused. The decisions regarding this bill were made by the standing committee under the time allocation motion. We followed the procedure. The government is simply trying to amend it over again.

I would argue that you should consider these points in relation to the government House leader's submission before making your final decision.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'll be extremely brief, because this matter has been dealt with on a number of occasions. Let me just say that what is happening here, in the opinion of the official opposition, is that the government is attempting to do by the back door what it should have been doing by the front door. In other words, it has had two bills before the House, Bill 160 and Bill 149, which could be amended if the government wanted to. The government had the opportunity to seek the unanimous consent of the House, which I'm certain it would have received, to go into committee of the whole to solve any of these problems, to make any further amendments.

The government chose not to do so. The government chose not to amend, with the permission of others, and I think they would have had it, their time allocation or closure motion to enable them to make the changes to the bill and has now brought in a third bill, under a disguise of a name that nobody recognizes, which is in fact an omnibus bill dealing with other pieces of legislation and trying to fix the mistakes and the rush that the government was in on these other pieces of legislation.

I hope you take that into account. That's a very simple way of putting it, but I think that's a very succinct and reasonable way of putting it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. I will take those into account. Government House leader.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I will be brief. I was somewhat heartened by the House leader for the third party and his support for some of the contentions which I put forward in my particular submission to you. I think the primary comfort that I found from his submission was that he, like I had during our experience in this Legislature, on many occasions during the committee of the whole House considered the same amendment which had been put forward in the standing committee which had previously considered that bill.

Therefore, in sum total with regard to our submission, standing order 51 should be interpreted in that narrower context than in a larger context.

I would also point out to the House leader for the third party that while part of Bill 164 dealt with some of the matters that were dealt with in the previous bills, it is in fact a very, very minor part of Bill 164 in total. In fact, it probably would represent less than 5% of that bill in terms of its total context, because it's a very large bill, as the member opposite knows.

I believe that, contrary to the intent of the House leader for the third party, many of his arguments in fact buttress the arguments which I've already put forward to you.

The Speaker: On the same point of order, the member for Downsview.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Just two brief comments. First off, standing order 51 clearly states, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can again be proposed during the same session."

The government contends that this is not a motion or amendment. I'd just like to draw your attention to Bill 164 which states quite clearly that if Bill 149 has not passed, then Bill 164 is deemed to amend 149. So by the government's own argument, it is viewed as an amendment and therefore standing order 51 ought to apply.

The other point I would make is authorities which the government also cites from paragraph 656 of Beauchesne and I will read that for you:

"An act which has been passed by both Houses and given royal assent may be amended during the same session by the introduction of a new bill; but" - and this a key point, Mr Speaker - "no amendment can be made to a bill which has passed the Commons or both Houses and has not received royal assent."

We submit that this obviously has not received royal assent and clearly the government's arguments are not in order with respect to this.

In conclusion, the reality is the government is proceeding very quickly, is not thinking through what it is doing and therefore has created this mess we're now in.

Mr Wildman: The government House leader again finds comfort in the comments I made earlier, that I agree that amendments dealt with in a standing committee can be reintroduced and dealt with again in committee of the whole. Nobody is debating that.

The point is this: The government for some reason, I suspect it has to do with its experience on Bill 108, does not want to go into committee of the whole. If the government wants to amend Bill 149, then bring in a time allocation motion change and go into committee of the whole.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): I beg leave to present the fourth report, 1997, of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT, 1997

Mr Spina moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr89,

An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

Mr Tilson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 169,

An Act to amend the Family Law Act with respect to the rights of spouses in a matrimonial home / Projet de loi 169, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le droit de la famille en ce qui concerne les droits des conjoints au foyer conjugal.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): With this bill an unmarried spouse, as defined by the Family Law Act, will now be able to obtain an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home. Currently he or she does not.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Mr Hoy and Mr Phillips exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

DEFERRED VOTES

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 152,

An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à améliorer les services, à accroître l'efficience et à procurer des avantages aux contribuables en éliminant le double emploi et en redistribuant les responsabilités entre le gouvernement provincial et les municipalités dans divers secteurs et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme «Qui fait quoi» du gouvernement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1402 to 1407.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Dog

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Carr, Gary

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Silipo, Tony

Skarica, Toni

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 74; the nays are 47.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that this bill do now pass and be entitled as in the bill.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Property taxpayers are extremely worried. The bill that just passed dumps social services on to property taxes. I heard you yourself on a radio interview say it's wrong to put these social services on to property taxes.

All the numbers you've produced show you are dumping $660 million of new costs on to property taxpayers. David Crombie and Mike Harris's handpicked panel told you not to do that. The question is, we know you have one-time funds. Will you commit today to convert those one-time funds to permanent funds so that you are not dumping $660 million of a new tax on to property taxpayers?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What the member from the Liberal Party fails to state is that we are giving $2.5 billion in tax room by taking half of education off the property tax.

The funds he's talking about are permanent funds. We committed that we would have $570 million in permanent funds available to assist those municipalities that need help. We said it would be there. We said the Who Does What trades would be revenue-neutral. They are revenue-neutral. There is no such thing as a tax increase that would result out of those trades. We have said that repeatedly. The funds are permanent, as I said, and we are taking $2.5 billion of education costs off the property tax.

Mr Phillips: The numbers you have produced show you're adding $660 million on to property tax. I want to follow up, because I think the bill you've introduced to gag municipalities tells the whole story. You have introduced a bill that tells local councils and municipalities that when they send out their notice for property taxes, when they are going to explain your downloading, they cannot put any message in there that you have not personally approved. You must personally approve all messages that go out in the property tax bill.

He's shaking his head. This is the bill, and the public should be aware that it says: "Contents must be used by the municipalities for taxing purposes...must be in the form approved by the minister. Any additional items would require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs."

My question to you is this: Why are you gagging the municipal politicians when they want to inform their taxpayers of why the taxes are going up in their municipalities?

Hon Mr Leach: I have never heard anything so silly in my entire life. What we've asked -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Leach: Again, that is a ridiculous statement. There is absolutely no reason why any municipality in the province that wants to include information attached to the tax bill cannot do it. If they want to put on bar charts or graphs or letters or whatever they choose to do, it's within the power of the municipalities to do that.

What we've asked for is a uniform tax bill so that every municipality in the province would be able to compare numbers to numbers. But if they want to include additional information and include it with the tax form, they can do that. They can put any message they choose to put, any message, as they can do now.

Mr Phillips: You don't know what you're talking about. This is your own document, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: The caucus should listen carefully to this. It says: "Any additional items would require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing." Any additional items: That's exactly what -

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: Just so the public understands, this is the government information, what the government says: "Municipal tax bills: Any additional items would require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing."

The fact is that no one trusts you any longer. No one trusts the Premier any longer; no one trusts you any longer. The question is this: Do you or do you not have the authority when this bill passes to approve any additional items that go out on the tax bill?

Hon Mr Leach: That's absolutely incorrect, 100% incorrect. We have asked for a uniform tax bill, there's no doubt about that, but there is nothing to stop any municipality in the province from putting any information that they choose to place with that tax bill. If they want to show charts, if they want to use bars, if they want to use narrative, whatever information any municipality wants to provide to their taxpayers with their tax bills is at their prerogative - anything. To insinuate that we're trying to stop a Hazel McCallion or a Mel Lastman from providing information to the taxpayer is just too silly to talk about.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Premier. Mr Premier, I'd like to ask you today to stand accountable for the bill that you and some of your back bench just passed, Bill 152, and the impact that it has and what the overall -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Can I ask the government members to come to order, please. Thank you. Member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Premier, we need you to stand accountable for the Harris health system and the growing mess that you have created, including some of the measures that have happened today. The Premier has authorized a fundamental change in the health system by downloading public health, by getting rid of, in the face of the advice of experts, one of the essential components of our health system.

When Dr John Gray of the OMA says that water supply contamination, outbreaks of diseases like tuberculosis, hepatitis and meningitis may become difficult to track and treat under a fragmented system; when the Ontario Medical Association believes you are compromising the health and safety of Ontarians; when Dr Duncan Sinclair said to you last week in Kingston that the move to get rid of public health is plain stupid, that it's the wrong idea and that bean counters have won the day, then it's time for you to stand accountable to the people of Ontario and explain why you're abandoning public health and pushing us back 50 years by dumping it on the municipalities.

Premier, will you stand accountable?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Health can explain.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I just want to indicate that under the changes that have been made in the legislation, the mandatory programs for public health are going to include a more comprehensive listing than has existed in the past; in fact we will continue to set the standards and we will continue to ensure that those standards are going to be met.

Mr Kennedy: The minister had an opportunity in her first actions as new Minister of Health to strike a departure, to stand up for health care in this province. Every expert in this province talking about a vision or a future for health care says public health has to be there.

Minister, you say those mandatory programs are going to continue, but what won't continue is the money that used to fund them, 100% funding. For example, last week we were told, and all members should know this, the Sexual Health Network has said we're going to have problems with STD. Today we have heard from AIDS activists who say that Bill 152, which you've just allowed to pass, which you didn't intervene on, means that successful, integrated, community-based response to the AIDS epidemic is threatened.

Minister, tell us today how many people are working on enforcement of those standards that you're going to be putting into public health authorities in this province. How many people are working on them, so we can have confidence that these important services are going to continue?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The same number of people who have worked on those standards in the past will be working on them in the future.

I also want to indicate to you that if medical officers of health have a concern about issues in their regions, they have a responsibility to report on those concerns. As I indicated to you yesterday, the Ministry of Health is spending $49 million on AIDS, and that doesn't include all the hospital visits, the drugs and the hospitalization. As you know, that is well in excess of the $42 million that is being spent by the Canadian government. We are leaders in the field of what we are doing in the area of public health.

Mr Kennedy: The minister full knows that we were leaders until Bill 152 was passed. If you speak to your chief medical officer of health, you will learn there is not one person yet hired to deal with the enforcement of public health standards in this province - not one. There is no enforcement mechanism put together yet.

When you say to us that we have that kind of advancement, elsewhere in the country there has been a drop in terms of the average age affected by AIDS. Here we still have a general problem. The epidemic still has significant issues. Needle exchange programs only exist in three of the municipalities that are coming together in Metro Toronto. There is a good likelihood these programs are going to be lost. These were 100% funded, guaranteed programs by the province.

Minister, stand today and tell us how you will ensure that these and other public health programs are not going to be lost, since you missed your chance and didn't oppose Bill 152 or have it changed to protect the health of Ontarians.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I have every confidence that public health is going to continue to be protected in Ontario. As I indicated to you, we will continue to set the standards. The public health employees will continue to be employed in the local municipalities and regions, as they have been in the past.

I just want to indicate to you, if I take a look at the mandatory programs for public health that have existed in the past and are going to exist in the future, they include a number of key sexual health issues such as family planning, sexually transmitted disease prevention and education and HIV-AIDS prevention and education. Boards are going to be obligated to comply with the mandatory programs listing for public health.

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

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. On September 22 of this year, the day your Minister of Education introduced Bill 160 into this Legislature, the Minister of Education said that the new education funding formula would be available by the end of October. We are now into December, Premier, long past October, and we still have not seen your education funding formula. Can you tell us when the Minister of Education and Training is going to make the education funding formula available, including the education funding formula for the stub year, which begins in a mere four weeks?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): That's a good question. Let's ask him.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I wish to assure the leader of the third party that both those formulae will be ready soon. The ministry has been working very diligently, through a somewhat challenging period of time, I might say, over the past month and a half. But I'm sure in this House we would all agree that the key is to get it right, so the leader of the third party will be assured that both the funding, which is the stable funding for the stub year, plus the funding formula for the year beginning September 1, 1998, will be available in the very near future.

Mr Hampton: This is incredible. This is a government that says it cares about education. This is a government that says it wants to improve the quality of education. Yet the boards of education of this province still don't know what their budgets will be for the period between January and June 1998. What incredible incompetence.

We've talked with education finance officials and they've told us very clearly that what they've seen so far would be a $220-million cut, an 11% cut for most boards across this province. Will you guarantee the parents, the students and the teachers of this province today that when you eventually provide that funding formula, it will not reduce the current school boards' operating budget? Will you make that guarantee?

Hon David Johnson: This government has made the guarantee of stable funding through the stub year, beginning on January 1 of next year through to the end of August, that there will be no cut in grants or taxes in the revenue associated with grants or taxes for the stub year. Stable funding, the same kind of funding the boards have today, would be carried through into the stub year right through until September.

Mr Hampton: I note the careful choice of words. The minister says, "the same kind." He doesn't say, "the same funding." He doesn't say the government will continue the current funding envelopes at the current rate. He merely says that the funding will be of the same kind. What people across this province are beginning to understand is that means a cut.

Let me review the situation again. The stub year begins in four weeks. You haven't told school boards how much money they're going to have. In another five or six weeks your government is going to set the tax rate for the education portion of municipal property taxes behind closed doors, and you haven't told anyone about that either. A mere five months later the new boards of education will be starting their first full fiscal year under the new funding formula without knowing anything about it.

Minister, what are you waiting for? Is the problem that you can't figure out how to make your funding formula work for students or teachers, or are the cuts so bad -

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

Hon David Johnson: The Minister of Education is working on this to ensure there is fair funding, recognizing the stable funding that's been guaranteed through to September of next year, through the stub year period, with no grant cuts and no tax cuts through that period of time. This is being worked with various officials from various boards. Those various officials have been communicating with the Ministry of Education employees. Their views are being taken into account. There was a consultation period earlier this year. The consultation input carries on. It's coming to an end in the very near future.

The boards are being guaranteed their funding and it will be announced in the very near future.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to ask my next question of the Premier. I'm reading from your Bill 164, that portion of Bill 164 that will amend the Municipal Act and will essentially gag the municipalities, will essentially stop them from including detailed information in their property tax notices about how your government is raising their property taxes.

Premier, what I don't understand is this: Why does your government want to gag the municipalities? Why do you want to have a

section in the Municipal Act that essentially censors the municipalities, that stops them from communicating in the way that they would like to communicate, in a way that would be appropriate for them to communicate with their citizens? Why are you trying to do this?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance - it's his bill, not mine.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Bill 164 does no such thing. It permits a standardized tax bill form to be sent out. It does not prevent any municipality in this province from including other information along with the tax bill.

Mr Hampton: I want to quote from this because what it says is, "A municipality shall not include other information on the notice" -

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Read the legislation then.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I appreciate the government member's assistance, but I think the leader has a pretty good idea about the question he wants to ask, so if you would just allow him to place it, this would work a lot better.

Mr Hampton: It says, "A municipality shall not include other information on the notice unless expressly authorized to do so by the minister." This is about censoring information. This is about stopping municipalities from providing information to their citizens and to their taxpayers.

Just to give the Minister of Finance an example, we understand that you're $200 million short on funding for seniors' housing and social housing within the greater Toronto area alone. That's what the auditor pointed out in his recent report. Is that the kind of information you want to stop municipalities from getting out? Is that the kind of information you want to censor by means of this amendment?

Hon Mr Eves: Consistency in tax bills when we're undergoing assessment reform in Ontario makes perfect sense to me. There should be one standardized tax form for every municipality. But I repeat what I said in response to his initial question: There is nothing in the bill that prevents any municipality from including any other information it wants. It can't be on the form - he understands that, I think - but they can certainly put anything else they want in the envelope with the tax bill.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): I don't think he gets it.

Mr Hampton: Oh, I get it. I get it very well. Some of the government backbenchers say that we don't get it. Well, we get it very well. The problem is this amendment doesn't talk about allowing municipalities to explain the tax situation. It says, "A municipality shall not include other information on the notice." It's very specific. This amendment -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Minister of Community and Social Services, I'm not going to warn you again. Member for Durham East, I'm not warning you again. Will you come to order, please. I'm not kidding. Come to order.

Mr Hampton: The government has just forced through their downloading bill which will have the impact of downloading $1.4 billion on municipalities. What I don't understand in a free and democratic society is, what does this government have against municipalities informing their citizens? Why do you want to stop them from including explanatory information on the tax bill? You know that citizens will read the tax bill. You know that citizens will go through that tax bill. Why are you trying to gag municipalities from including relevant information on that tax bill that will explain it is you who is raising taxes, that will explain it is you who is -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: There will be one consistent, transparent, understandable, standardized tax form in Ontario for all municipalities. I quote from the act. We're talking about the form of the notice. The sections you refer to all talk about what can be on the actual tax form, but there is nothing in the bill, and I repeat for the third time, that prevents every municipality in this province, if they want to, from including any kind of explanatory document, piece of paper, notification, whatever you want to call it, along with the standardized tax form. There is nothing that prevents that whatsoever. There is no censorship at all in that provision.

QUINTUPLÉES DIONNE / DIONNE QUINTUPLETS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Monsieur le Premier ministre, laissez-moi vous situer. Le 28 mai 1934, une date à ne pas oublier, un miracle s'est produit à Corbeil en Ontario, tout près de chez vous. D'une pauvre famille francophone naissaient les quintuplées Dionne. En 1935, elles devenaient les enfants-tutelles du gouvernement de l'Ontario, un gouvernement libéral. Durant la période de tutelle, elles ont été totalement exploitées. On estime les retombées économiques aux quintuplées à plus de 500 $ millions. Avec ces argents, la province a bâti Quintland.

Le 25 novembre 1997, vous avez refusé toute assistance financière. Quelles sont les possibilités de reconsidérer votre décision ?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Attorney General will respond.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): While the government is very sympathetic to the Dionnes, based on the facts it is very difficult to justify conventional compensation in this particular situation.

The government's responsibility for the Dionnes ended 53 years ago in 1944. Up until that time, all actions and accounts of the Dionnes' guardians were approved by the courts of the day based on the law that existed at that time. Trustees were appointed by the courts; courts approved every account involved with the Dionnes. Certainly we have had discussions with representatives of the Dionnes and have conveyed this to them.

Mr Grandmaître: I'm pleased that the Attorney General has spoken up on this issue, because the family has written to the Attorney General eight times and he never had the decency to return an acknowledgement. Today he's saying, "We're washing our hands."

I want to remind you of what the now Premier of Ontario said back in 1995: "If I'm in a position to be able to address this issue following the upcoming provincial election, I will do it." But then a year after, in 1996, he wrote, "As you have been informed, unfortunately, due to a busy schedule, I am unable to commit to a meeting at this time and I have therefore forwarded your request to the Attorney General."

Mr Attorney General, have you ever met with any member of that family?

Hon Mr Harnick: The Premier asked me to review this matter. We have communicated with representatives of the Dionnes. We have thoroughly researched the facts and law pertaining to this request. While I of course have the greatest sympathy for the situation -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly every action that has been taken has been based on the laws that existed 53 years ago. Trustees were appointed by the courts. Trustees' actions and accounts were approved by the courts of the day. That is why we have, in discussions with the Dionnes, offered to involve the Dionnes, and recognizing their place in history, by naming a research fund into children's issues in their honour.

We would very much welcome, as we've indicated to the Dionnes, input into the establishment of this fund, the creation of the fund, to do research into children's issues. That is something we would very much welcome.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. I was part of the government you wrote to and you raised the issue of the Dionne children. We were a government that actually began to do some research as to what had happened. In that letter you stated that if you were to become Premier, you would do something to address the serious issues.

When we were the government we discovered that the previous governments of Ontario had put in place trustees who were supposed to look after the children. We know that the government of Ontario profited to a large degree from the notoriety that the Dionne children achieved.

Premier, what I want to ask you is this. You were an advocate for the Dionne children when you were leader of the third party. A lot of information has been discovered. What has changed your mind and the mind of your government?

Hon Mr Harris: I never advocated compensation. What I advocated was to take a look at it, investigate this, give it a thorough hearing and make sure an appropriate response is given. I asked the Attorney General to do that. The lawyers have done that. They've been in contact with lawyers and representatives of the Dionnes. Those responses have gone back to the Dionnes. We're still waiting to hear back, as I understand, the lawyers for the Attorney General to do it. I have fulfilled and honoured the commitment I made to the Dionnes.

Monsieur le Premier ministre, on demande une autre fois : êtes-vous d'accord, allez-vous dire «oui» à mettre en place une enquête publique pour voir ce qui était arrivé aux fonds fiducières pour les quintuplées Dionne ?

Hon Mr Harris: I guess this is maybe the 500th call for a full-blown public inquiry into things. We are dealing with lawyers through the Attorney General, with lawyers and representatives of the Dionnes -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: There have been very different suggestions as to what the requests have been in the paper. Anybody who reads the paper would notice significant contradictions. I read one

article where they say, "We don't want compensation, we want an inquiry." Another one says the opposite of that. You're asking why we haven't given compensation. There's a lot of contradictory information out there.

I think this is a very sensitive issue. I have honoured my commitment to have a full look at it. We have not said no to looking at an investigation as to what happened. We have had the lawyers for the Attorney General look at whether there is any basis at all for taxpayers' money to now come forward, and we are following that legal advice.

The Speaker: New question, member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Maybe I'll get a question. It's to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: What can I do?

The Speaker: Order.

NORTHERN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): As I said, my question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. A lot of us here have travelled the north quite extensively - I did with a lot of my fellow members - and we saw at first hand the deplorable shape that the highways were left in by both these governments over here, the deplorable shape that these governments left the highways in. I think, Mr Speaker, you might have been with us.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you again, Mr Speaker. As I said, we witnessed at first hand the deplorable shape that both these governments left the highways in. This prompted the minister to put $200 million in the last budget into the highways for the north. I would just like to ask the minister if he has kept his promise and done some work on the northern roads.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Grey-Owen Sound for his excellent question and having the courage to stand by it and to see that it was delivered.

I'm pleased to inform the member and the House that it is true that we are living up to another commitment. We've promised $200 million in extra funding for northern roads over the next five years. During this past construction season alone, our government spent $141.6 million on northern road improvement. I recognize that the opposition might not be interested in hearing this, given the fact that they left the roads in such a deplorable state in northern Ontario during their 10 years of government in this province, but this past year 36 projects were taking place.

We saw the reconstruction of 532 kilometres of highways and repairs to 14 bridges. Northerners deserve that, and it's long overdue.

Mr Murdoch: I appreciate the answer, Minister, but I still, believe it or not, receive a lot of calls from a lot of the friends I have in the north because they feel they need someone down here to look after them. The members who are elected up there have a tough time doing that for some reason; I don't know why that would be. Would the minister give us some specifics on some of the places he's going to get some more of these projects done?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Again I thank the member for his excellent, insightful question. I'll just read off a few who will benefit from safer roads in northern Ontario for the members opposite who might want to refresh their memory, for those who have seen for the first time in years a record amount of money being spent in northern Ontario on highways.

In northeastern Ontario there were 20 reconstruction projects alone from May to August of this year. These projects included - I'll just list a few for the viewers at home and the members of the House - 66 kilometres of reconstruction of Highway 11 in the Tri-town area, 23 kilometres of reconstruction on Highway 66 from Kirkland Lake, 19 kilometres of Highway 17 to Espanola, the Abitibi River bridge on Highway 652 east of Cochrane.

In northwestern Ontario there were 16 highway reconstruction projects: 64 kilometres of reconstruction on Highway 17 from Wawa to White River, 36 kilometres of reconstruction on Highway 72. The list goes on and on with good news from the Harris government for northern Ontario.

CASINO WINDSOR

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. The minister will be aware that on October 1 of this year, his predecessor and I had an exchange in the House with respect to an audit that is being conducted at Casino Windsor, the permanent casino site. The previous minister appointed that announcement in response to a number of concerns that had been expressed about potential cost overruns, allegations of cost overruns, at that site.

On October 1 of this year, your predecessor indicated to me in this House that the full content of that audit would be made public. Is it the minister's intention today to confirm that in fact the full audit that's being conducted at Casino Windsor's permanent casino site will be made public when it's completed?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I certainly would like to thank the member for that question. There's no question that we are doing a very extensive audit; Price Waterhouse is conducting it on our behalf. I have not been privy to the information that has been derived from it, so nothing has really been shared with me, but I want to say to the member that we have a commitment as a government to make sure that the taxpayers of Ontario get full value for their money. If there are irregularities, I'm sure the audit will bring those out.

There are situations within that audit that we might not be able to share with the member or with the people of Ontario. I can only say to the member that once I have disclosure on the audit, certainly I will share it with my colleagues at the executive council level and see what can be done.

Mr Duncan: Today the minister's assistant was quoted in our local media as saying that in fact you will not release the full report. Minister, you may be aware by now that the city of Detroit has three casino initiatives coming on stream. We think the results of that audit should be made public so that the public can know that we're in a position to compete.

Will the minister today agree to release the full results, and will you confirm that today in cabinet you and your colleagues approved the development of a second casino site on the so-called western anchor site that will include a theme park or at least some kind of tourist attraction? Will you tell the House today what your plans are to ensure that the revenue stream your Treasurer has projected from Casino Windsor will be in place in three years and that Windsor can continue to compete effectively and keep the casino dollars in Ontario?

Hon Mr Palladini: I share the member's optimism. I believe we are going to make a business case out of Windsor. There are certainly opportunities within the city of Windsor that the people of Windsor will benefit from. This government has full intentions of taking a look at how we can best come together and come up with a business plan that might facilitate an additional casino, certainly, but there are some things that we have to consider before we get to that point. I have every intention, along with some of my other colleagues, to get together with the people of Windsor to see how we can best facilitate that. So I'm certainly on your side.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Minister of Health. I've just returned from a visit to Street Health, which is a health clinic for homeless people in downtown Toronto. The visit is part of our Dialogue for Change, which examines the effect of the Mike Harris cutbacks and crackdowns on real people in Ontario.

The street nurses and their clients asked me to raise with you today the plight of homeless people, who frequently lose their identification and their health cards because of the constant moves and the lack of security they experience.

As of January 1, 1998, your crackdown on health cards will mean that even emergency treatment is denied to those who have no health card. Doesn't that policy violate the Canada Health Act, which guarantees emergency health care to anyone living in Canada?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I appreciate the question from the member opposite. I certainly want to indicate to you that health care will continue to be provided for those individuals. I continue to give you my assurance that this indeed will happen.

Mrs Boyd: I hope, then, that the minister will explain to us how that is going to work. That certainly is not what is in the policy that was released by your predecessor. It certainly is not what the street nurses have been led to expect. They have been demanding a meeting with you to bring before you the serious situation faced by their clients.

We're talking about extremely vulnerable people who because of your cutbacks have mental and physical health problems that are already threatened by their lack of housing, by their inadequate nutrition and by their lack of security. Yet you're saying there's no problem.

Quite frankly, I just saw the lineup at the Street Health clinic of people who are desperate to try and get their identification. They need a birth certificate first, and we all know how long that takes and how much that costs. Then they have to wait for your ministry to issue a health card. They're under the impression because of the policy issued by your predecessor that they will not have emergency care. Will you explain to us how you are going to resolve this matter?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I just want to reiterate one more time that emergency treatment is not going to be denied to any individual. In fact, I'd like to quote from a letter that was written to the past minister. That is from Dr Bob Frankford, who is now with Seaton House. He says:

"The inability of homeless individuals to obtain health care because of lack of health cards has often been commented on. I would like to commend the ministry for coming to Seaton House recently to provide and make photo health cards available. Your staff were helpful and patient. The initiative was considered very successful."

I would just repeat again that we are in the process of ensuring and we are making every effort to ensure that those individuals have health cards, but I would also indicate to you that emergency health care will not be denied to any individual.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. The county of Northumberland, which is my riding, will be receiving several highways from the provincial government. They are concerned that these transfers appear arbitrary and unfair, as all highways in Northumberland except for the 401 will be transferred to the county. Can the minister explain to my county council the rationale used for deciding which highways would be transferred?

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I thank the honourable member for Northumberland for his question. As usual, he is sticking up for the rights of his community. But there has been a great deal of misapprehension about this issue and I welcome the opportunity in the House to set the record straight.

These decisions were not taken lightly and in fact they are not arbitrary nor are they unfair. This process was started by Mr Crombie. Mr Crombie and his commission originally identified some 9,000 kilometres of roads that serve primarily local rather than provincial traffic.

This determination was based on sound technical criteria that included the type and volume of traffic on the highway, the destination of that traffic, the existence of parallel provincial highways and the types of communities that the roads linked. The ministry then reviewed these 9,000 kilometres. I'm pleased to report that 3,400 kilometres of those highways are being transferred, and we commit to maintain a cohesive provincial network.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The minister will also know that some of the municipalities receiving these transfers are concerned about the amount of compensation they will be receiving from the government. Can the minister please explain how the level of compensation has been determined?

Hon Mr Clement: I can tell the honourable member that this government is committed to dealing with municipal partners fairly and I believe that the compensation that will be paid to the municipalities is fair. We have set aside $270 million as a one-time unconditional grant to municipalities receiving roads.

My ministry conducted a very thorough examination of the roads being transferred and identified any existing capital deficiencies that would need repair within the next five years. Based on this information, the municipalities were given the funding to help pay for those repairs and, in addition, were able to get funding for any maintenance work for a one-year period.

I can also tell the honourable member that additional funding is provided to those municipalities receiving a disproportionate increase in the size of the road system. I want to inform the honourable member that each compensation package contains an additional amount of money for contingency, to make sure that -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, official opposition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, your health services destruction commission steamrolled into Hamilton last week and devastated programs and facilities for seniors, the disabled and the mentally ill. You will close the psychiatric hospital, St Peter's and Chedoke.

Minister, these recommendations are going to abandon many of our most vulnerable citizens, but particularly it's your attack on the mentally ill, people who use psychiatric facilities, that is going to be absolutely devastating to our community.

You have offered token Monopoly money at this point for the services that are now provided at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. Your commission has recommended that the services be done at St Joseph's in Hamilton. However, the funding commitment does not match the need. You are currently providing $44 million for operating costs for those services at the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. The recommendation for these same services at St Joseph's is $25 million, a shortfall of $19 million.

Minister, will you guarantee today the same amount of funding for those programs at St Joseph's that -

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

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): Yes, you're right. The ministry did receive the interim report from the Health Services Restructuring Commission, as you know, and the commission recommended some changes. It also recommended some significant reinvestment in the Hamilton-Wentworth community and we are now awaiting the final recommendations.

As you know, there is an opportunity now for those who reside within the boundaries of Hamilton-Wentworth to respond to the commission's report, and they have until January 5, 1998, following the final report we receive from the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Then we'll have an opportunity to move forward and make the implementation possible. I can assure you we will move forward in such a way that we will address the needs of the Hamilton-Wentworth community.

Mr Agostino: Minister, your commission and your former minister have always worked on the basis that the money taken out of one service would be guaranteed and reinvested back into that same facility or service, in Hamilton or any other community. You are now shortchanging us $19 million. The president of St Joseph's Hospital, Allan Greve, said, "The moneys allocated to support the services presently done by the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital are insignificant."

The evidence is clear. The mayor has come out and expressed concern as to what's going to happen. You are abandoning individuals in our community who need psychiatric care. You're offering token Monopoly money right now that doesn't come close. I'm shocked that you would not stand up today and guarantee that the same money will be given to services. You are also recommending housing the criminally insane, people going in for an assessment, in an acute care hospital, in St Joseph's Hospital.

You're doing this with a $19-million shortfall. You will not be able to guarantee the safety of those patients and the patients in the acute care hospital. You cannot guarantee the safety of the community because you're not giving the hospital the money to run those programs. Again I ask you, Minister, will you guarantee now that St Joseph's will receive the $44 million presently allocated to the HPH to run those same programs?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to understand that the initial directives we have received from the Health Services Restructuring Commission are interim directives. Obviously the community now has an opportunity to make a response. As I indicated to you, that is going to occur on January 5, 1998. However, I personally want to assure you that there are no plans whatsoever to close any of the facilities until we are sure we have the appropriate spaces in place.

I also want to indicate to you that I can appreciate your concerns regarding the mental health and psychiatric services that are going to be needed in your community, but I have indicated that we will be embarking on a comprehensive review of mental health services in Ontario and we will certainly be taking into consideration your concerns and the concerns of everyone else.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Minister, this morning you said to the media that no community would get a charitable casino if it didn't want one.

I know you're aware that in my community of Beaches-Woodbine, through extensive consultation, the community has indicated its opposition to a charitable casino and also to the expansion of video lottery terminals. They participated in a referendum along with the rest of the citizens in the municipality of Toronto, who said no to those two items, as did communities in municipality after municipality by referendum.

I've asked members of your government what action you will take. The member for Scarborough Centre, for example, on a CBC panel gave an assurance that he believed your government would respect those referendum results.

Your government decided to have these charitable casinos and force them on to communities. Now the communities and the people have said no. Will you take action to stop all process on the development of casino proposals with the proponents that you have awarded those contracts to?

Hon Mr Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I did say that, but I would like to turn the question over to my colleague Minister Tsubouchi.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Once you've said, "I did say that," you've got to answer the question.

Hon Mr Palladini: I just want to say to the honourable member, I certainly did say what I said this morning. To my understanding, the municipality certainly has the right to say no to a charitable casino, so I stand by what I said.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The gambling strategy gets more interestingly bizarre with every day that goes by. First the Premier says, "No more casinos until we have a province-wide referendum," then, boom, out of the blue we have 42 charitable gaming casinos imposed on communities. Then communities have their own referendum and they say no, yet you still continue to say that you're going to impose them.

My own community had a referendum on a full-scale commercial casino. They said yes. The municipality said no to your charitable scheme, yet you won't come across with what they want.

What is your strategy? Where does democracy come into this picture? What does the voice of the people mean? Will Sault Ste Marie get a full-scale casino or will you impose the smaller charitable-type casinos on every community across this province against their wishes?

Hon Al Palladini: Mr Speaker, I would like to turn this question over to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for an opportunity to respond, certainly to the first part of the question. We've been very consistent in terms of what we've said. We've said we wouldn't force any community to take a charity gaming club if they didn't want one, but we've also been very clear and consistent as well by saying that any plebiscites or any of the referenda that took place over the last several months were really information for the local councils.

We've agreed to abide by the wishes of the council. We hope as well that the councils embark upon having full information about what we are doing. This includes communicating with all the various parts of their community, which means of course the ratepayers in their community, the charities and the local BIAs, to make sure they will truly reflect what their communities want.

It's also very important for them to understand the consequences as well. Clearly, at the end of March of next year, the three-day rovers are going to cease to exist because they have not worked. We want to implement a new accountable -

The Speaker: Thank you, perfect; right on time.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a number of petitions I present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the provincial government, through Bill 160, has continued to undermine the democratic functions of the Ontario Legislature by removing decision-making from the legislative process to the regulatory powers of cabinet;

"Whereas the provincial government has ignored the majority of public opinion against Bill 160;

"Whereas the provincial government, in

an act of vindictiveness against teachers who protested against Bill 160, has introduced amendments to remove principals and vice-principals from their federations and thereby deny them collective bargaining rights;

"Whereas it is clear that the government's agenda is to cut at least $667 million from education spending and further undermine public education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to conduct a vote of non-confidence in the Ontario government and to call for a provincial election."

Once again, these petitions are signed by literally hundreds of concerned citizens, and I affix my signature in full support.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"To Premier Mike Harris, Minister William Saunderson, and members of the Ontario Legislature:

"Whereas Mike Harris during the 1995 election promised voters he would not allow more casinos without holding a community referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris's Conservative government of Ontario has designated the Beaches community as one of 36 new permanent charity casino sites without holding a referendum;

"Whereas Mike Harris says these permanent casinos are simply replacing roving charity casinos;

"Whereas roving charity casinos can only be set up for a maximum of three days, can't stay open all night, have no more than 30 tables and take a maximum bet of $10. On the other hand, the new casinos are permanent, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, with 40 tables, 150 video slot machines and maximum bets of $100;

"Whereas Mike Harris dismisses concerns, saying the total number of gaming days in Toronto won't change;

"Whereas the nature of gambling will change dramatically with the introduction of the highly addictive video slot machines and much higher dollar volume operations, it being evident by the government's estimate that the new permanent casinos will see about $1 billion a year wagered;

"Whereas Mike Harris says the new permanent casinos will be safer and more accountable;

"Whereas at the Windsor casino extra law enforcement resources were provided by the province and the Harris government has made no such commitment for the new casino in the Beaches;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease any bids for the Beaches casino site, to fully consult with the community, and not to force a casino site on the community against its wishes."

I am in full support and affix my signature.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a very unusual petition to present to the House today and it's from the parishioners at St Joseph's church in Bowmanville. They've signed the white ribbons against pornography and sent them to me asking to present them to the House.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness; and

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic; and

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require elective procedures to be funded; and

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured; and

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

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of abortion as a means of birth control; and

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

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

"That the Ontario provincial government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial Health Insurance Act."

On behalf of members of the parish, I'm pleased to present and sign this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that's signed by hundreds of constituents throughout the Kenora riding. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"As parents, grandparents and community members, we recognize all our children deserve the highest-quality education. Bill 160 is not in the best interests of our children.

"We, the undersigned, recognize that

whereas Bill 160 does not enhance the quality of education, it only facilitates the government's power grab; and

"Whereas our community members promote children first; and

"Whereas Ontario teachers have the best interests of our children at heart;

"Be it resolved that the passage of Bill 160 be delayed while the government works together with educators, boards of education, parent councils and concerned citizens through the democratic process to achieve an educational system that truly benefits our children and preserves local autonomy."

I've attached my name to that petition as well.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by approximately 120 residents of Toronto, London, Sarnia, Stoney Creek, and other communities in southern Ontario. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas many questions concerning the events preceding, during and after the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995, at Ipperwash Provincial Park, where over 200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women, have not been answered;

"Whereas the officers involved in the beating of Bernard George were not held responsible for their actions;

"Whereas the Ontario Provincial Police refused to cooperate with the special investigations unit in recording the details of that night;

"Whereas the influence and communications of Lambton MPP Marcel Beaubien with the government have been verified through transcripts presented in the Legislature;

"Whereas the trust of the portfolio of native affairs held by Attorney General Charles Harnick is compromised by his continued refusal for a full public inquiry into the events at Ipperwash;

"Whereas the promised return of Camp Ipperwash to the Stony Point Nation by the federal Ministry of Defence and the serious negotiations of land claims by both the provincial and federal governments could have avoided a conflict;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that a full public inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Dudley George on September 6, 1995, to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about the government, the OPP and the Stony Point people."

I support the call for an inquiry into the tragic events.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the students of College Avenue Secondary School, disagree with Bill 160 to the fullest extent; we are having no say in our education and in our futures. To say that we do have is having little to no impact on government officials. We would like the government to listen to the students of Ontario and to take into consideration that it is our lives that they are dealing with. The government needs to understand that our education is crucial. We care about our education and futures and therefore need some say as to where they are going. We would like the government to take this seriously. We strongly urge you to listen to the students and to vote no against Bill 160."

It's signed by 150 of the students of College Avenue Secondary School in my riding.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition sent to me by OSSTF District 1. Notwithstanding the fact that Bill 160 has passed, their voices should be heard.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 160 is detrimental to our education system we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: That Bill 160 should not be passed."

It's signed by parents and students of Essex South.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas Bill 160 is detrimental to our education system we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: That Bill 160 should not be passed."

I add my name to that petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 162 people.

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

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am pleased to present a petition for the member for Durham West, Minister Ecker. This is from a teacher at the Scarborough Board of Education, a petition against Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's a properly and duly filled out form. I'm pleased to present it to the House today.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas we wish it to be known that we are in total disagreement with Bill 160; furthermore, we believe that our government was based on a democratic system, not a dictatorship;

"We, the undersigned, petition that a referendum be held concerning Bill 160:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly instruct the Minister of Education and Training to hold a referendum concerning Bill 160."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would ask you, Speaker, to consider the rotation that just took place. I think something may have gone out of order. I'd ask you to review that if you would.

I have a petition regarding Bill 160, similar to the ones I've introduced before. These are another thousand citizens. It was coordinated by Liz Ruffell and Donna Bandow. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, ask you, Mr Dave Johnson, Minister of Education, to withdraw Bill 160 on the grounds it is flawed legislation that will lead to flawed education and (

a) allow uncertified teachers to teach in the classroom; (

b) cause a loss to kids of thousands of teachers and increase class sizes; (

c) reduce teacher preparation time, which translates into less teachers and less time for students; and (

d) allow the provincial government to set the educational tax rate without provision for debate in the Legislature or at the local school board level."

I add my name to these thousands of Hamiltonians.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): I have a petition here on behalf of many of my constituents regarding their concerns about education in Ontario.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the current pay equity legislation affects Red Cross differently than any other provider of homemaker services in Ontario and makes it impossible for the Canadian Red Cross Society to compete on a level playing field;

"Whereas without a resolution, the Canadian Red Cross Society will be forced to increase wages and benefits, already the highest in the industry, by approximately 45% January 1998. The program cannot afford this increase;

"Whereas Red Cross provides 80% of the service in rural communities, and in 29 communities Red Cross is the only service provider;

"Whereas clients in many communities will be left to cope on their own and some 6,000 homemakers and 400 office staff, most of them women, will lose their jobs;

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

"We are very concerned about the Red Cross pay equity issue. We are asking the three party leaders to put people before politics and come together in a non-partisan effort to resolve the homemaker services pay equity problem."

I am pleased to add my name to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas the provincial government is abandoning its responsibility to provide good care for people who live in long-term-care facilities by defunding and deregulating the sector; and

"Whereas the resulting staff shortages lead to loss of quality care, decreased resident security and more workplace injuries; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that funding, staffing and standards provide a level of care which promotes dignity and respect for those who live and work in long-term-care facilities;

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide adequate funding for the care of residents in long-term-care facilities, to establish and enforce provincial standards for care in Ontario long-term-care facilities and to impose a moratorium on the selloff of care for vulnerable residents to the for-profit sector."

This is signed by 60 citizens of the province. I agree with the petitioners and I have signed my name as well.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I have a petition here from a number of concerned residents in my riding. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"We require a resolution to the pay equity issue for Red Cross homemakers in Ontario."

I am pleased to affix my signature.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the ministry of medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

This petition is signed by a large number of constituents, mostly from the Espanola-Massey-Spanish area, and I'll affix my signature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): I just wanted to address a comment to those who were giving petitions. The member for Hamilton Centre will be particularly interested in this. You made a statement and I didn't want it to go unchallenged. I did make a rotation. There was no one standing up. I made another rotation. I called on the member who had indicated that he had had one before. He wasn't standing up, and there was someone standing over here. You may have thought that I had not followed in rotation. No one from either of the parties here was standing and so I didn't recognize them.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Mr Speaker, I just want to thank you for agreeing to review it. That is what I requested and I accept your explanation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Government notice of motion number 54.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the time allocation that has been called by the government House leader for debate this afternoon. I have given you some written explanation of my concern. This motion time-allocates debate on Bill 161, a bill that's related to Bill 160, the education bill that was passed yesterday by the government majority. I draw your attention to the motion, which says, "...when Bill 161 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading."

Then it says, "...third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill."

You'll note, Speaker, that this time allocation motion appears to allow for two things that violate the standing orders of the Legislature: first, that the bill be allowed to pass two stages in one sessional day. This is in direct violation of standing order 78(b), which reads, "A bill shall not pass more than one stage on one day if opposed by 12 members standing in their places." This time allocation motion does not allow the House to be tested in the manner set out in standing order 78(b).

Second, the time allocation motion allows no opportunity for amendments to be made to Bill 161. In my recollection, this has never been done before in this place.

Our standing orders allow for all bills to pass through either a standing committee or committee of the whole House in order that they may be scrutinized and changes or amendments made to them if necessary. How can members of the assembly who may have proposed changes to this bill, which our party does have, submit them for consideration?

For instance, this bill allows for the payment of $40 a day to parents who have children 13 years of age or younger in the school system in Ontario without any receipts. Obviously, that is one of the amendments that we would have liked to put to the bill. If the government is serious about wanting to reimburse parents for costs incurred, we would like to know that those costs actually were incurred. Accountability, I think, calls for that. So our caucus wanted to put an amendment.

Other amendments we would have considered with regard to the provisions of the bill deal with how individual members of federations are to be protected.

This, in our view, is a serious violation of the rights of the members to scrutinize legislation in committee and to present amendments for debate even under time allocation. We believe this is a right of MPPs that is entrenched in the standing orders.

Beauchesne states that each stage of a bill - first reading, second reading, committee, report and third reading, all these stages - performs necessary functions. I refer you, Speaker, to page 195 of Beauchesne.

The function of the committee stage is to consider the details of a measure and propose amendments. The function of the report stage is used to amend specific clauses. The function of the third reading stage is to review the bill in its final form after, and I quote from Beauchesne, "the shaping it has received in its earlier stages."

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: The member from Scarborough is giving a treatise on my comments.

This time allocation motion is the latest evidence that this government wants to curtail debate on important legislation and use essentially anti-democratic tactics to achieve their end in passing legislation quickly.

I ask the Speaker to review and rule on this point of order before the debate proceeds this afternoon.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, further to the point of order - and I appreciate the member for Algoma having sought a way in which to present the concerns as a point of order which can be subject to your review - the fact that this bill is now being time-allocated and that there will be no opportunity for amendment and no opportunity for discussion on a clause-by-clause basis I think is cause for very real concern perhaps in two particular respects.

One is that the bill contains what is commonly known as a basket clause. You will understand that there have been a great many public questions raised about exactly how this payment to families is to work. As the member for Algoma has indicated, there is a real concern about the non-receiptability. There are amendments that would be considered in clause-by-clause to clarify the way in which the payment is to work.

It's quite clear that the government itself has not given sufficient consideration to how to make this work, because the basket clause exists and it's a clause that gives the Minister of Education and Training the power to issue such directives to boards and establish such procedures as he or she considers advisable to carry out the intent and purposes of this section.

Quite clearly, this is a basket clause that would be subject first to clarification and secondly to amendment. We have, as an opposition party, been extremely concerned about the granting of broad, sweeping general powers to act through regulation.

The second area which continues to be a public concern raised as recently as this morning is the unanswered question of costing of the payment and who is responsible for the costing. It has been indicated that it will be public and separate school boards that will be responsible for the costs. They are concerned about cost overruns and the effect of any cost overrun on their operating budgets. Of course, with no longer any taxing power, they simply do not know where the dollars will come from. I think that's an important question that has to be asked.

All of these issues would have been addressed in a committee hearing or clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There is a growing concern in this House, and I suspect outside of this House, that we are starting to have the government of the day trying to circumvent what we feel would be the normal procedures. You heard an earlier argument today, which I won't repeat, on Bill 164, where we felt the government was trying to do by the back door what it should have been doing by the front door; in other words, bringing in another bill to amend two controversial bills they did not want to send to committee of the whole.

Now we have a circumstance which clearly violates what my understanding of the spirit of the rules of this House is, and I believe probably the letter of the laws of this House or the procedures of this House, even under the changed rules brought in by this government.

One that we have to deal with is that I can't think of any time where we've dealt with two stages of a bill in one day without consent. There has always been consent of the House when that's the case. Some days there have been three readings in one day, but it has always been with consent, to give that time for due consideration.

The second is to remove all ability to offer amendments to legislation, which I think is important. If you don't have an amending stage, then the government doesn't have time to reflect on anything in a piece of legislation, the public input that comes in. When you have a piece of legislation of this kind, the public tends to, even on an unsolicited basis, send in information and helpful hints to government and opposition as to how legislation can be amended, changed or improved. This time allocation motion is going to deny that opportunity to members of the House, and indirectly to members of the public.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): My contention, of course, is that this time allocation motion is within the standing orders of the Legislature. This is not anti-democratic in any way, shape or form. The standing orders clearly give the majority of the Legislature the authority to either send a bill through the committee process, to the committee of the whole House, or not. That is clearly within the standing orders for us to decide or not to decide as a majority of the House.

If in fact the majority of this House felt that this should go to the committee of the whole House or to a standing committee, then they would vote against this particular time allocation motion.

During the second reading of this bill, none of the concerns raised today by the opposition House leaders and opposition members, or very few of them, were raised during the debate on Bill 161. In fact, the debate centred around another bill, Bill 160.

This bill is a relatively short bill with I believe about 13 sections in it. We do not believe as a government that each and every piece of legislation must go through the committee process, particularly bills which are relatively short and relatively straightforward in terms of their focus and their direction.

I would like to turn now to previous occasions, and I refer to Speaker Warner's ruling on Bill 150 in 1992. In 1992, on Bill 150 it was moved that "the Speaker shall put the question forthwith on the motion, which question shall be decided without amendment or debate." That motion was unprecedented at the time. It provided for no further debate with regard to third reading and there was a vote required immediately by the Legislature. There was no time allowed during the time allocation motion for debate, so we had a time allocation motion in which there was no time between when the motion was made and a particular vote was taken.

Speaker Warner ruled that the motion was in order for the following reasons: Standing order 46 requires written notice and a full day of debate on a motion and makes no mention of a minimum time requirement for third reading debate on a bill. The closure motion moved under then-standing order 45 can be moved without notice, can be moved by any member and is non-debatable. A time allocation motion under standing order 46 can be moved only by a government minister upon written notice and provides a certain measure of balance.

While it doesn't provide for minimum debate on third reading, it does specify that a motion cannot be moved until there have been at least three days of debate at second reading. We have had three days of debate at second reading on Bill 161.

Speaker Warner concluded, quoting from the 21st edition of Erskine May at page 409:

Time allocation "may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."

The provision of the time allocation tabled and ready to be debated this afternoon as well - and I believe the House leader for the third party talked about another standing order - talks about this particular one, our time allocation motion today which, as filed with you, says, "...notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House." Mr Speaker, it is my contention and our contention that this bill falls within the standing orders.

I'd also like to draw your attention to a precedent in the House of Commons, in their Journals, where there is a precedent with regard to where a time allocation deals with more than one stage of the bill. This was in 1971, and I'm referring to 1013 in the Hansard Journals of the House of Commons. At that time there was a time allocation motion for the reporting stage and third reading in one day. In that motion it set conditions and exact times for those motions and the extension of new motions and when those votes would be called. I believe that concludes our contentions that this time allocation is in order. We're ready to debate it.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is this a point of privilege?

Mrs McLeod: Yes it is, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I've got to deal with the point of order first. You do take it. But I don't take it in the middle of a point of order. I'll take it immediately following it. Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The government House leader is arguing a very novel argument that if a majority of the members of this House wish this bill, Bill 161, to go to committee, they should vote against this motion. That's a very odd approach. All time allocation motions that we've had in the past in this House have allowed for some sort of committee consideration for amendment.

To suggest that in this particular case you can't have a committee unless you vote against the time allocation motion is quite novel and unusual. I just refer again to standing orders 71(

b) and (c), where it allows for, in the new rules this government brought in, bills to go to committee or to committee of the whole for consideration and amendment and even allows for 12 members to stand in their place to refer a bill to a standing or select committee.

Surely it is quite unprecedented for the government to introduce a time allocation motion which does not allow for any amendments. This is the first time we've ever had that I'm aware of where the government has argued that it is perfect and it cannot make any mistakes in the drafting of legislation and therefore doesn't need to consider any amendments. Surely the government is not that arrogant.

We've seen over many, many pieces of legislation the need for the government to amend its own legislation. This is the first time we've had this kind of a presentation to us, and I think it's quite unacceptable that we should not be able to have at least the opportunity to propose some amendments that would improve this legislation for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank all the members today for their submissions today with respect to the point of order. Basically I see two points of order: one with respect to the amendments and the second with respect to the standing orders and dealing with the two particular processes in the same day.

With respect to the amendments, let me just say I can cite you dozens of examples - and I think even the opposition members would know - of where this House has dealt with a bill in order and not had it sent anywhere for amendments. This would not be what I would consider to be precedent setting with respect to dealing with a bill before this House. Therefore I don't find that a particularly compelling argument with respect to the amendments.

With respect to the time allocation motion, the difficulty I am faced with at this time, and it's a very, very problematic situation I find myself in, and I read through the books and I hear all the examples and I will do it again today, but as you read through these - you understand that they were written some time ago.

I'll do it with the first journal entry I have here. This is Erskine May:

"The House has adopted the standing orders, which are permanent rules for the guiding and the control of the House in the conduct of its business. The standing orders do not form a complete code of procedures for the House to discharge its functions. They may be supplanted from time to time by sessional orders or special resolutions to facilitate the progress of business through the House."

If you see that, "They may be supplanted from time to time by sessional orders or special resolutions," in essence you may have a time allocation motion that can supplant your standing orders. When this was written, I think that was a fairly interesting argument. It says, "...from time to time." The difficulty you're faced with is that it's no longer from time to time; it's on a fairly routine basis. I think we'll all admit that. I don't think I'm speaking out of any outrageous side to suggest that it's a fairly routine proceeding to go with time allocation.

I say not on any government's list; I think we can all remember back to days in all three parties' being when time allocation motions were introduced and dealt with on a fairly routine basis. So when I review the context of what I measure my decisions by, it is somewhat difficult at times to rationalize this or at least square that circle.

"Standing orders are not safeguarded by any special procedure against amendment, repeal or suspension. They are passed by a House by a simple majority and may be altered, supplanted or deleted by a simple resolution in the same way." So in essence your standing orders are there but they can be changed by a simple majority of this House. At whatever period of time this House wants to supplant them, change them or ignore them, they can, and it's just that simple. That was Edighoffer.

We then move into the other expert on allocation of time orders, and that's Erskine May, page 408. I'll read this to you as well, and I think you can understand the conundrum.

"In many sessions in order to secure the passage of particularly important and controversial legislation, governments have been confronted with the choice, unless special powers are taken, of cutting down their normal program to an undesirable extent, or of prolonging the sittings of Parliament, or else of acknowledging the impotence of the majority of the House in the face of the resistance of the minority.

In such circumstances resort is had sooner or later to the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure, namely, the setting of a date by which a committee must report, or the allocation of a specified number of days to the various stages of a bill and of limited amounts of time to particular portions of a bill."

When they speak there, they're speaking with a great degree of, I think, reverence. That's a time allocation motion. They're suggesting that this is very unusual; it's "special powers," and "undesirable." You can read into that that when they wrote this they're saying, "My goodness, this is something that governments have to do when they're being held hostage because they can't get legislation through." I read that and I understand that that's a time allocation motion. I do not speak of just this government. I think we can all imagine what it was like in opposition or wherever you were. Many time allocations were brought forward.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's right, they suspended the standing orders. The government House leader is perfectly correct.

I'm now left with the decision. Frankly, as Speaker, there is no decision. Time allocation motions suspend the standing orders of the House. They suspend them, so whatever rules we have lived by up until this point in time, they're suspended, and inserted in their place is the time allocation order.

It seems to me that you're looking to me, on points of order, to rule against a time allocation motion. In the vernacular, there's nothing wrong. All the books say there's nothing wrong.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members for Algoma and St Catharines.

There's nothing wrong. Those are the rules. That's how they're written, that's how they're examined, that's how they're drafted and that's how standing orders get suspended so time allocation motions may be adopted.

I can only say to the members of the House that it seems to me, and I don't think this is unreasonable, that we've dealt with a lot of time allocation motions. I just say to them that maybe the House leaders could get together and discuss another process or at least alleviate the process to some degree, if that's where the frustration is.

I can only say to you that standing on points of order and requesting me to rule time allocation motions out of order -they can very rarely be out of order because they suspend the very standing orders that we live by.

The motion is in order. Bill 161 is in order.

Mr Wildman: With respect, Speaker, this is not done frivolously. I understand your position, but this was only introduced two weeks ago. You haven't been held hostage.

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, if you considered that I suggest it was frivolous, I don't, and I would never consider the point of order frivolous.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My point of privilege is relevant to that, because the government House leader, in making his arguments as to the challenge we've made to the time allocation motion, suggested that the concerns raised by the members of the opposition had not been raised previously in second reading debate on the bill. The implication is that our concerns being raised today were simply dilatory in order to delay the time allocation motion proceeding.

In fact, the government House leader was not present when I participated in second reading of the bill. If he were to review Hansard he would know that I raised the concerns both of the regulatory powers of the minister under the basket clause and of the uncosted implications of the bill and the liability of public school boards to pay for that. I would expect that the minister would correct the record by withdrawing his statement, which is not borne out by Hansard.

The Speaker: Again, that's something the minister will review. I didn't hear that and I would not request him to withdraw it now unless he deems that he in fact said that.

Now I guess we're at the government House leader.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I believe I moved government notice of motion number 54.

I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 161,

An Act to provide fairness for parents and employees by providing remedies relating to the province-wide withdrawal of services by teachers between October 27 and November 7, 1997 and to make a complementary amendment to the Education Act, when Bill 161 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That the order for third reading of the bill shall then immediately be called and the remainder of the sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm or 9:15 pm as the case may be on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 5 minutes.

Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Labour, the member for Simcoe Centre and the member for Simcoe East.

I have just moved time allocation for Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act. As government House leader, I would prefer not to use time allocation to move bills through the legislative process in a timely fashion. However, it has proven to be virtually impossible for the government to move important legislation through this House and fulfil its mandate without using time allocation.

As my predecessor and colleague Minister Johnson has noted before, we're not the first government to be forced to use time allocation legislation. Indeed it was the NDP government that in 1992 codified the time allocation process through changing the standing orders of this Legislative Assembly. The same NDP government then went on to allocate some 23 pieces of legislation. How many of us remember Bill 40,

An Act to amend certain acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment? How many of us remember Bill 48, the social contract?

The Liberals, without formal provision for time allocation in the standing orders, which were changed after their particular time in office, moved time allocation on five bills.

To date, our government has allocated time on 15 bills including Bill 161. Clearly, the NDP holds the record for allocating time on the most bills.

Mr Wildman: You're only halfway through. At this rate it will be 30 or 35.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Sterling: All three recognized parties in this House have relied on time allocation to ensure passage of important legislation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Algoma, the member for Lambton.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: We'll wait. We've got ample time. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: Bill 161 is an important piece of legislation. Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act, protects the rights and interests of children, families and employees who were adversely affected by the teachers' illegal strike. By ensuring the expeditious passage of Bill 161, we can help to alleviate the financial hardship of families affected by the teachers' strike. By ensuring the expeditious passage of Bill 161, we can protect the rights of those teachers who chose to stay in the classroom, who chose to do their legal duty.

The motion before the House today will enable us to do that. The motion provides for the completion of second reading of Bill 161, for the immediate debate on third reading of Bill 161 and for a timely vote on third reading of Bill 161. To date, the debate on Bill 161 has primarily served the opposition parties with an opportunity to extend debate on Bill 160, the Education Quality Improvement Act. We have already spent three days in this House on that extended debate. That bill passed third reading yesterday.

While I have been able to address the procedural aspects of Bill 161, I will now permit my colleague the Minister of Labour to speak on the more specific aspects of Bill 161 and the importance of this bill receiving third and final reading as quickly as possible so we can be fair to those teachers who crossed the picket lines and wanted to go and protect the children they were teaching in their classrooms, and also to reimburse parents who by the acts of this illegal strike had to take money out of their pockets to pay for day care.

I yield the floor to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): As the member for Durham Centre and as the Minister of Labour and above all as a parent, I am pleased to support this motion on Bill 161, the Fairness for Parents and Employees Act. This motion will allow this Legislature to move swiftly to address the concerns of the parents, guardians and taxpayers of Ontario.

It is my sincere hope that as a Legislature we can proceed expeditiously to third reading and proclamation of this important legislation. Therefore, I once again ask all three parties in the House to give unanimous consent and support the passage of this bill.

Since first reading, a large number of members have indicated support for this legislation. In fact, even the Liberal education critic and member for Fort William has publicly expressed her agreement with the rebate provisions for parents in Bill 161. It is reported in the Chronicle-Journal in Thunder Bay on Wednesday, November 26, 1997:

"McLeod said Tuesday she doesn't grudge the rebate, just its timing. `The province hinted at the rebate during the strike. It was a way of saying to parents, "Don't worry, we'll compensate you for any inconvenience or cost."'"

If passed, this bill will provide fairness to the working families of Ontario who were adversely affected by the province-wide strike. These parents and guardians suffered hardship and inconvenience and had to shoulder additional burdens. Bill 161 will provide financial relief to a maximum of $400 per family - I emphasize $400 per family, not per student - for the hardship experienced by parents and guardians during the strike.

Mr Wildman: It doesn't matter if they were inconvenienced or not. You're going to give them 400 bucks.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, it's the last time. I don't need to remind you again.

Hon Mr Flaherty: It would also