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

March 20, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L044 - Wed 20 Mar 1996 / Mer 20 Mar 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUSINESS IN ONTARIO

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

GEORGETOWN AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

TASTE OF ONTARIO RECEPTION

MEAT PROCESSING PLANTS ABATTOIRS

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

SUNRISE YOUTH GROUP

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

JOB SECURITY

EDUCATION FINANCING

TTC SAFETY

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

DEER POPULATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

TAX REDUCTION

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

TAX REDUCTION

TEACHER TRAINING

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

TAX REDUCTION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

TRANSITION HOUSE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

ADVOCACY, CONSENT AND SUBSTITUTE DECISIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'INTERVENTION, LE CONSENTEMENT ET LA PRISE DE DÉCISIONS AU NOM D'AUTRUI

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUSINESS IN ONTARIO

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): This is a toonie I have in my hand. It represents the two sides of Mike Harris's Ontario.

On one side, we have the "Open for business" sign, which allows the government to continue collecting revenues during the strike.

Last Friday, my constituency office received a call from an employer in my riding who needed to make her employer health tax remittance that day but was not able to get through the picket lines. The Ministry of Finance advised that there is a list of many government offices open and available to take payments. The Finance ministry said the government was open for business. They said she must meet the Friday payment deadline, even if she had to push through a picket line to do so. Obviously, the government has made sure that workers are available to keep the money coming in.

On the other side of the coin, however, is a sign reading "Closed up tighter than a drum."

Today, I had a call from a constituent whose driver's licence was wrongly revoked because of a computer glitch. My constituent needs his licence for his job, yet the Transportation ministry tells us they cannot provide a temporary licence or issue a letter which would allow my constituent to drive until a regular licence was issued.

The government is blaming the strike, saying they can do nothing to assist my constituent, yet they are open for business when it comes to collecting revenues. Obviously, Mike Harris underestimated the level of public urgency of some of the services provided by the government -- or maybe he just doesn't care.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I rise today to demand that this government immediately order a full public inquiry into the police violence against pickets last Monday. Only the members of this government think that nothing went wrong, but who are you listening to?

The president of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association believed that the OPP acted improperly, and he said he was disgusted when he heard that the OPP were boasting that they'd "whack 'em and stack 'em" shortly before they clashed with demonstrators.

The public is shocked and outraged over photos and television coverage of police in riot gear beating up on school teachers and civil servants. But still this government refuses to take responsibility for what happened.

This government seems to think that taking away people's rights and stripping workers of fair compensation is good government and that it's good for business. But are images of riot squads and billy clubs at the Ontario Legislature good for business? Is unprecedented labour unrest good for business?

The government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to assure them that their police force is acting in the interests of the public.

I remind the Premier and the Solicitor General that they are ultimately responsible for the safety of not only the members of this House but of the people who were legally demonstrating outside this building. The public has a right to feel safe. Intimidating people from exercising their right to demonstrate is just another example of this government's arrogance.

I demand that this government listen to what people are saying. They must listen to the police and the public and have the courage to order a public inquiry of the police violence this past Monday.

GEORGETOWN AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Halton North has long suffered from a lack of adequate chronic and long-term-care facilities. This being so, it is my pleasure on this day to rise and share good news on behalf of all residents of my riding and Halton region.

The Ministry of Health recently gave its approval for Georgetown and District Memorial Hospital to proceed with its chronic care relocation project. The $1.3-million funding announcement will provide state-of-the-art delivery of this service. This is a much-needed facility and a good first step in addressing the high needs of the region in the health care sector. Funding for the chronic care project will also allow the hospital to pursue the development of a 57-bed long-term-care facility.

Ontarians deserve a sound, secure health care system. Despite the need to reduce the overall spending, we are committed to protecting our health care budget. This announcement reflects the government's commitment to find savings and efficiencies in some areas in order to reinvest and to meet the needs in others to provide new technologies and meet the needs of an aging population.

I am pleased by the minister's reinvestment announcement and thank him on behalf of those people who will benefit directly in the region as a result of this initiative.

Mr Speaker, perhaps you would allow me to suggest that I have a particular interest in hospitals today, as my daughter is in the process of delivering my fourth grandchild.

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Over the last nine months, we have seen Mike Harris break a lot of campaign promises.

There was Mike Harris's promise not to cut health care. "Not one cent" is what he said. But what did he do? He cut $1.5 billion, more than $1.3 billion from our hospitals alone.

Mike Harris promised not to bring in user fees, yet what did he do? He brought in more than $225 million in new user fees targeted to hurt Ontario's seniors and poor.

Mike Harris promised to protect law enforcement and classroom education. What did he do? He cut more than $1 billion from school boards and municipalities which provide these important services.

Mike Harris has broken a lot of promises, but on Monday we saw not just another broken promise; we saw how Mike Harris's revolution is changing our province.

Just days before the election, Mike Harris promised Ontarians that under his premiership Ontario would be a kinder, gentler and fairer province. Clearly, nothing could be further from the truth. Through his actions, his smugness and his baiting, Harris has divided this province and he has encouraged confrontation.

Billy clubs and riot police do not make our province a kinder or gentler place, Mr Harris. This is not the province I grew up in. I am not proud of what we have become and this is not the kind of province that I want for my children, my grandchildren and yours.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Part of our job is to represent the views of our constituents in this place, and I have had many calls in my office and many approaches from people in London Centre to talk about their view of what happened on Monday around this place. One senior who called described herself as absolutely horrified that she would see such a thing in her Ontario. A young person called describing it as a war zone and sounding very frightened.

In the London Free Press yesterday there were three accounts that were presented from union people. They were from Dave Kerr, who's the president of OPSEU Local 115 in St Thomas; Rudy Parachoniak, a member of OPSEU Local 108 in London; and Jeff Hale, a member of OPSEU Local 108 in London. All of them describe a situation in which they believe the response of the police was absolutely uncalled for.

One of the quotes is: "They smashed people out of the way. They were hitting people with night clubs, knocking them down." Another was hit by pepper spray. He said he had just picked up his picket when he heard a whistle signalling something was going to start to happen, and he had no way of getting out of the way. Another said he was hit by a billy club during the 1:10 incident. He said, "I was trying to hold some of the people back because I knew it was going to get nasty by the way the police came out."

Mr Speaker, please give us a public inquiry so that more of these stories can be told so the people of Ontario will --

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

TASTE OF ONTARIO RECEPTION

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): It is with great pleasure and certainly with a breath of fresh air that I rise today to relay a message from the farm families of Ontario. On their behalf, I'd like to extend an invitation to all the members of this House to attend the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council's Taste of Ontario reception. It will be held today from 4 pm to 7 pm in the legislative dining room.

I'd like to encourage all members to attend this unique opportunity to experience and taste the bounty of this great province and to meet many key leaders of Ontario's agricultural community. Let me end by reminding this House that in Ontario, there's no taste like home.

MEAT PROCESSING PLANTS ABATTOIRS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Je profite de l'occasion pour saluer les francophones de l'Ontario en cette Journée internationale de la francophonie.

Yesterday I left this chamber and went outside to speak with the meat processing plant owners and employees who were protesting in front of Queen's Park. Like the meat processing plant owners and employees of Prescott and Russell, they are angry because until February 19 of this year they were told by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs that meat inspection would continue with part-time inspectors during the strike.

They are also angry because they were advised only days before the strike started about the Ontario Labour Relations Board decision on the essential services agreement, even though the board's decision was taken on May 10, 1995.

Je voudrais apporter à l'attention du gouvernement que plus de 100 employés d'une dizaine d'abattoirs de Prescott et Russell sont présentement en chômage et que plusieurs de ces abattoirs, dont la majorité sont des entreprises familiales, ne pourront rouvrir leurs portes après la grève à cause de difficultés financières causées par l'inaction du gouvernement. De plus, pas moins de 2,000 employés et 300 abattoirs sont inactifs en Ontario et un nombre incalculable de producteurs et d'agriculteurs subissent des pertes financières importantes, encore une fois à cause de l'inaction du gouvernement dans ce dossier.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Time has expired.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): People in Welland-Thorold and across this province are sickened, disgusted, indeed frightened as a result of their having witnessed the excessive and brutal application of illegal force to members of Ontario's public who were peacefully and lawfully gathered around this Legislative Assembly and neighbouring buildings on Monday of this week past.

People in Ontario witnessed an unprovoked attack within the midst of little children. Among the victims were a school teacher and at least one Metro Toronto police officer. Indeed, as recently as today I've received telephone messages of Ontario Provincial Police officers from other parts of this province who condemn the conduct of Mike Harris's and Bob Runciman's goon squad outside this Legislative Assembly when they attacked law-abiding Ontarians, bloodied them, beat them, sent them to the hospital, knocked them to the ground, leaving them lying unconscious on the pavement.

I tell you, Speaker, as of Monday, this government has nothing to be proud of. This cries out for an independent public inquiry so that responsibility can rest at the feet of those who --

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

SUNRISE YOUTH GROUP

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today to inform the members of this House about the tremendous work being done by a group of young people in Durham Centre riding.

They have founded and run a charitable, non-profit organization called Sunrise Youth Group. It's mission is to provide human support and friendship for people with special needs. I am proud to say that Sunrise Youth Group has to date reached out to over 900 physically challenged people through more than 1,000 voluntary participants in its many programs, such as residential camps, cabin retreat weekends, dances and athletic events.

Inspired by its philosophy of "Peer support, not paid support," Sunrise Youth Group strives to break down imaginary boundaries between differently abled individuals through real working models of inclusion within a shared experience of community and mutual responsibility for one another.

Generating a total of over 60,000 hours of unpaid volunteer work over the last three years, Sunrise Youth Group is supported by fund-raising, donations, program fees and funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The group has decided that, beginning in April, it will become gradually independent of ministry funding through a mutually developed, innovative plan to obtain alternative funding to support its excellent services to people with special needs.

This keen initiative by Sunrise Youth Group is to be applauded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services as an exemplary model for other community service organizations to emulate.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The events of Monday, March 18, in and around the legislative precinct were extremely disturbing to me and should be to all members of this House. The actions on all sides that I viewed on the news and indeed outside my window have troubled me greatly.

If I might beg the indulgence of the House for a few moments, I would like to respond to security concerns raised yesterday, and I would ask that the members bear with me a few minutes since I find it necessary to first outline the sequence of events, make certain observations and conclude with my own recommendations. This makes for a rather lengthy statement.

On Monday, March 18, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) raised a point of privilege with respect to the actions of the police in and around the parliamentary precincts earlier in the day. Yesterday, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr Cooke) rose on a point of order on the same matter. The members for Durham West (Mrs Ecker); Sudbury (Mr Bartolucci); Algoma (Mr Wildman); Ottawa West (Mr Chiarelli); Etobicoke West (Mr Stockwell); Hamilton East (Mr Agostino); Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos); Yorkview (Mr Sergio); Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot); and St Catharines (Mr Bradley) also spoke on the point raised.

Let me begin by clarifying the procedural issues. The issues raised with respect to the actions of the police on Monday cannot be considered to be points of order since those must deal with the procedure that is followed inside this chamber and in the legislative committees. Neither can I find that a prima facie case of privilege has been established. In his ruling of October 23, 1991, Speaker Warner summarized the intent of privilege as follows:

"Parliamentary privileges of members of the assembly...were intended to give members and others certain special rights and immunities considered essential for the operation of the assembly. These rights and immunities allow the assembly to meet and carry out its proper constitutional role. They also permit members to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities, and permit others properly involved in the parliamentary process to carry out their duties and responsibilities."

The actions of the police in and around the legislative precincts on Monday do not, by definition, constitute a breach of any collective or individual privilege. While it may be argued that the restriction or denial of access of the members of this House could be considered a contempt of Parliament, this is not precisely the issue we are dealing with today.

However, while a prima facie case of privilege has not been established, this does not end the matter.

Many members will know that I have had a longstanding preoccupation with the security of the legislative precincts. I have on previous occasions shared these concerns with members of this House, and in an effort to resolve them, I requested that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly conduct a security review. I have met with that committee, and I anticipate a report from it soon. It is my hope that we can set in place a permanent consultative process whereby the Speaker can seek advice and share information on security issues.

The security review and report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly will be of a great deal of assistance to me and to future Speakers. However, the committee has not yet completed its deliberations, and security decisions had to be made in anticipation of the attendance of significant numbers of demonstrators at the legislative precincts on Monday. I believe that it would have been negligent not to have considered security arrangements in preparation for that. As a result, the usual steps were followed and precautions taken in accordance with the 1993 memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly.

As the member for Ottawa West correctly indicated yesterday, under the terms of that memorandum of understanding, the Ministry of the Solicitor General may recommend that a special event or situation requires a greater than normal level of security and that a security plan is prepared by the legislative security service, that is to say, the Ontario Provincial Police. The plan is then reviewed by the Sergeant at Arms, after which it is presented to the Speaker.

From the time the memorandum of understanding came into being, this has constituted "notice to the assembly." Assuming the Speaker is in agreement, the plan is signed by the Sergeant at Arms and released to the OPP and the Ontario Government Protective Service for implementation.

Since 1993, there have been approximately 15 such plans. In the case at hand, the plan was one prepared for the event of the strike as a whole by OPSEU and made reference to varying degrees of threat. In general, it can be said that the Sergeant at Arms and the Speaker are guided by the advice they receive from the OPP.

Before the signing of the 1993 memorandum of understanding, such plans were prepared. However, they were never discussed with either the Speaker or the Sergeant at Arms.

This procedure was followed in advance of Monday's demonstration. I am sure that the members will understand that this is not a document that should be distributed widely before an event takes place. However, it seems to me that if the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly were to create a security subcommittee or some other consultative body, the plan could be shared with them in advance of its being signed.

I have received a report from the legislative security service in response to concerns raised by the member for Welland-Thorold, the contents of which I will make available to the Legislative Assembly committee.

I would now like to briefly discuss the matter of the court order. Prior to the commencement of the strike action taken by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, my primary concern was and continues to be that the members of this House and those staff necessary to its operation are assured access to these precincts. For that reason, acting on behalf of the members of this assembly, I sought legal advice and took steps to prepare an application for a court injunction. Let me be clear that it was never my intent to prevent lawful pickets from occurring on the grounds of the precincts. It was my intent, however, to ensure that the House would not be prevented from meeting.

In my opinion, on Monday, March 18, there were attempts to restrict, delay and in some cases obstruct access to this place. I found this sufficient cause to proceed with the application for an injunction. As has been reported in the press, the injunction was granted by the Honourable Mr Justice Winkler. I intend to table a copy of that court order. The order reads as follows:

"This court orders that defendants, and any one having notice of this order, shall not impede, obstruct, restrict or delay free access or egress into or from the east door of the main Legislative Building and the north door of the Whitney building, of members of the provincial Parliament and essential staff of the Legislative Assembly."

I might add here that the decision of the court on this matter has made the issue of access to the legislative precincts a matter not just of privilege but of common law.

There was a suggestion made yesterday that I should have somehow delayed the commencement of the meeting of the House on Monday, pending the court decision. In response, I say firstly that the Speaker does not have the power to alter the commencement time of the House, even if the House leaders had first been consulted and had agreed. In addition, by delaying or preventing the House from meeting even for only a day would have been to do the very thing that I was trying to prevent. The members were here, necessary staff was here, there was no reason for the House not to proceed and to continue to meet regardless of the outcome of the court decision.

Several members indicated to me yesterday that they believe that a public inquiry should be ordered to investigate the police actions of Monday, March 18. I am certain that members know that the Speaker has no authority to order a public inquiry. A public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act can only be ordered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I find that the events of Monday were of such a grave nature that I as Speaker must take whatever action is in my authority. In this regard, in the strongest terms possible, I urge that the matters raised yesterday be fully investigated by this Legislature. I have heard arguments that suggest there are members who do not believe that a legislative committee is the appropriate legislative body for this matter. To them I would say that legislative committees are the means that we as legislators have at hand and the only means that I as Speaker have authority to consider.

I therefore urgently recommend that the House leaders meet and come to an agreement for an order of reference to be formally referred by motion of the House to a standing committee of this Legislature. I further recommend that such an order of reference allow for a full investigation, including public hearings --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could I have some order in the House, please?

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Well, just shut her down, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I'll do it.

I further recommend that such an order of reference allow for a full investigation, including public hearings and I am confident that the committee in question will ensure that they hear representation from all parties involved. In addition, since it is my belief that consideration of this issue cannot be delayed and will require some time to complete, I recommend that the House leaders allow the committee additional time to meet over and above its regularly scheduled meeting times.

Finally, while it is absolutely within the authority of the House leaders to determine which committee should consider this matter, I would recommend that it be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. My reasons for this are threefold: First, it has traditionally been the responsibility of this committee to consider matters of this nature and should continue to be. Second, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is less likely than some others to be interrupted by a referral of legislation. Third, and to my mind most importantly, this committee has already embarked on a general security review and this background would be helpful in its deliberations.

I want to reiterate that I find this issue to be of the utmost importance and urgency and I cannot convey strongly enough to the three House leaders my fervent wish that they meet immediately to draft an order of reference. That is my conclusion.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The issue has been dealt with.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, it has not been dealt with. On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I find it difficult to believe that before I even get to state my point of order, you've decided that the issue I'm going to raise has been dealt with. You don't know the issue I'm about to raise. I'm not surprised that you suspect the issue I'm about to raise, because I do rise on a point of order related to the responsibilities of the Speaker and in fact, to the conduct of the assembly and to the appropriateness of a legislative committee investigating what can only be described as police action taken against citizens of this province.

There are issues of security related to the members of the assembly and to the security of the assembly building itself, Mr Speaker, and I recognize your responsibility in addressing those issues. I also respect the fact that there has been a committee of this assembly that has been looking at security issues and will be continuing to look at security issues.

But I submit to you that it is not only beyond your responsibility to order a separate and independent inquiry, but it is beyond your responsibility to suggest that that legislative assembly committee can deal with the issue, quite separate from the issue of access to this building of members, of police action against Ontario citizens. That can only be dealt with by an entirely independent, non-political, full public inquiry.

I am somewhat surprised that the Premier takes that particular moment at which we assign responsibility for the next actions to his government to leave the assembly.

I do accept the fact, and you will appreciate that I'm accepting the fact, of your statement that you as Speaker do not have responsibility to deal with the issue of a public inquiry. We will indeed be using our appropriate question period opportunity to challenge the government to order exactly that kind of public inquiry.

Mr Speaker, there is only one other issue of order that I would like to raise with you today, and that's the whole issue of dealing with the security plan. I don't wish to challenge you on it, because I simply don't know what goes behind the development of a security plan, who is ultimately responsible for it, who is supposed to read it. I've heard you say that you did not read the plan. I'm not sure how that fits with your responsibility to provide for the security of the assembly building. I'm not sure how you can be accountable for that if you haven't read the plan to maintain security. I think that stands as an unanswered question.

I would like you to rule on whether or not that security plan can be tabled with this assembly so that we may have a fuller understanding of what the plans were and who in fact was responsible for putting the plans in place. At the very least, we'd like to know who drafted it and who did read it and who knew what security provisions were being made in the event of what was clearly an anticipated problem on Monday.

Mr Speaker, if it's not possible for the security plan to be tabled with the assembly, and I'll await your ruling on that, I would ask that at the very least that security plan be tabled with an independent public inquiry, which we trust the government will order following question period today.

The Speaker: I want to respond to the leader of the official opposition. If she had listened to my statement, my statement read, "Before the signing of the 1993 memorandum of understanding" -- this is before 1993 -- "such plans were prepared, however, they were never discussed with either the Speaker or the Sergeant at Arms." That was before 1993; that's not the case now.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I do stand to be corrected. Am I to understand then --

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sorry; I realize that the government members are feeling very sensitive and very testy at any challenge on this issue, but, Mr Speaker, I simply want to ask of you, are you saying then to me that I misunderstood and that since this was post-1993 you did in fact read the security plan and know what was in it? Will you then further rule on my request to have that plan tabled?

The Speaker: On a further point of privilege, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Mr Speaker, first of all, I do appreciate the difficult circumstance that you are in as Speaker. There are a couple of issues, though, that I am not clear on from your ruling.

First of all, you made no reference to the member for Sudbury's point of privilege. I find difficult that it is not a point of privilege. But I think that we are owed some kind of an explanation. When the Ontario Provincial Police riot unit, tactical unit -- there was some other phrase used this morning on radio -- is running up and down the hall banging their shields and enters an MPP's office, and a member comes to the House and says to you as Speaker that he and his staff were intimidated, did feel intimidated, I can't believe that it's possible to say there is no point of privilege.

Those are the parliamentary precincts. This is our place, and that is the fundamental question of principle. So there's that that I would like to have an understanding on.

Mr Speaker, you've made reference to the security plan. I would like to ask you, I would like to have that plan tabled, not just to the Legislative Assembly committee. I would like to have the security plan not tabled just to the Legislative Assembly committee but tabled here today. I think part of the public scrutiny of this whole incident is making those documents available, as the report that you indicated would be tabled to the Legislative Assembly committee. I for one am not prepared to have this matter dealt with in a confidential way. It's going to be and has got to be dealt with in a public way, which means that report should be tabled in the assembly.

Mr Speaker, finally, I understand clearly that you do not -- and I think in correspondence I sent to you today I understand that you do not -- have the authority to call a public inquiry, and I think we recognized that yesterday. We ask that you voice, as the leader, as the Speaker of this place and a person who has clearly said that you have grave concerns about what happened on Monday, you could state clearly your view as Speaker about a public inquiry.

You will remember very clearly that there was an agreement back in September that there would be full hearings of the Legislative Assembly and that the government House leader at the time said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, we can agree to a referral." We never got a referral by the three House leaders to the Legislative Assembly committee. There were never parameters for public hearings. There was never a public airing of what happened.

Our caucus is not prepared to accept or put faith in that process because it did not work in the throne speech riots. It did not respond to those very serious concerns.

And I am very concerned that because of the domination of government members on that committee, and the fact that there will be three political parties, of course, that the process will turn into a partisan bickering instead of the public airing of that incident on Monday. We want an arm's-length review that will look at not just the provincial police but everybody who was involved, and it's got to be done by somebody who has nothing to do with the assembly, somebody who can do an arm's-length, legal review of what happened.

Mr Speaker, while you have said today that you have grave concerns about what happened on Monday and that there has to be a public review, I think you would be most helpful if you would indicate whether you believe that a public inquiry would also be of assistance to resolving this, on your behalf, on behalf of all of us in this place, but more importantly, on behalf of the public that wants to know what went wrong on Monday.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I'll try to do it as briefly as possible this afternoon to find a resolution to this. I find it unfortunate that we are in this particular circumstance, but clearly you can see, and all of us can see, from the debate that's taken place in the last few days in this House, what would happen if this matter were to be dealt with by a legislative committee, that is, the matter of the police action against the citizens who were assembled near this building.

I have had experience with legislative committees. I know members mean well when they are there. All want to be as independent-minded as possible, but there's no question that partisan considerations, and I say that on all sides, come into the deliberations and the ultimate report which is written.

The other problem we have with legislative committees, and it is as a result of each election, is that legislative committees are structured so that the party with the most seats -- in this case the governing party, and the majority party -- has a majority on the committee, so the report that comes forward from the committee is going to be only a report with which government members can agree. Otherwise, we simply have a minority report.

There are cases where legislative committees are appropriate for dealing with certain matters raised in this House, but it seems to me that this is one case where, for the sake of everyone concerned, the Solicitor General or the Attorney General or whoever would have responsibility in this case should call for an independent public inquiry aside from partisan considerations, a person of impeccable background who can hear all the representations which are made to that committee, all the evidence which is produced, and can come to certain conclusions and make certain recommendations.

I think those kinds of recommendations would be more easily accepted by all members of the House. They certainly, I believe, would be helpful to you, because the matter discussed, the focus of the matter on the police action against the citizens, is I believe unfairly placed on your back and should be placed within the purview of an independent person. I hope the Solicitor General or the Attorney General, whichever person may be responsible in this case, would give that consideration, would appoint that inquiry as soon as possible and we can resolve this matter I think to the satisfaction of all members of this House.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): With the greatest of respect, Mr Speaker, I listened to your ruling very carefully, and I understand the difficulty that has been alluded to by two of the previous speakers with regard to your position in this matter.

However, as someone who has dedicated over two decades of my life to this place, I have, as you do, the greatest of respect for the legislative process, but I just do not believe, and our members do not believe, that in this particular situation the specific question that was raised, the main question that was raised yesterday -- more than the police action itself, but the plans for security, specifically, who has authority, who made the decision, when the decision was made and why -- the whole question of accountability cannot properly be dealt with in the context of the legislative committee.

The legislative committee should be tasked with the responsibility to deal with the implementation of security plans in this place and to advise you in that regard, but to inquire into the issue of the decision-making process that led to the melee outside this place the day before yesterday cannot be done unless it is done in such a way that it is seen to be independent and public in a way that the legislative committee and the legislative process would not make possible.

That is why we specifically requested your advice with regard to the possibility of the setting up of a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. Hopefully, if such an inquiry were to take place and come forward with a report on what happened and recommendations on how to avoid that in the future, that then could be referred to a legislative committee, which would then deal with how those recommendations, whatever they might be, could be implemented by all the members in this House to ensure the safety of the members of this House and, more particularly, the safety of the members of the public who should have access to this place.

I appreciate the seriousness with which you have looked at this matter, but I would reiterate that the proposal of a legislative committee hearing process, to be agreed to by the three parties in this place, does not deal with the accountability issue and the decision-making process with which we are most concerned beyond the whole question of security for this assembly.

I would hope you would consider whether you could make it clear whether those matters should be dealt within a public way under the Public Inquiries Act.

The Speaker: I want to make it very clear that the issue was raised the other day by one of the members -- I'm not so sure, maybe it was the member for Windsor-Riverside -- indicating that I had asked for an investigation, and he said it would be the police investigating the police. That's why today I wanted to make my statement, because I got the feeling it would have taken a period of time before I had received something from the police.

That's why today I've taken the initiative, I felt, to try to get some public hearings with regard to what happened. Anybody can come before that committee. It will be up to the legislative committee what they do.

I thank the members for their input.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too appreciate the challenge you face, but with all due respect I think your statement today is not as helpful as it could have been. I'll try and outline why I believe that.

You indicated in your remarks very clearly that you regard Monday's events as extremely grave. I'm paraphrasing, but I take from your remarks and the tone they were delivered in that it was a day of shame for all of us in Ontario. You then went on to say that you could not consider ordering a public inquiry because that was beyond your authority. That is up to the government to make that decision, so you're limited in your recommendations.

You cannot consider what we in our caucus, the Liberal caucus and the NDP caucus believe to be the appropriate route. That was outside of your jurisdiction. In my opinion, you recommended another route that you could recommend, perhaps the best route that you could recommend, but I think from the public's perception not the correct route.

The reason I say that your decision is not helpful is not because you didn't consider it well, but because you have recommended a course of action that is inappropriate in our opinion and one that I don't think will lead to a satisfactory decision for the public.

We saw yesterday in the Legislature at least two government members express their views about what happened, indicating that in their view the actions were appropriate and then sitting down to standing ovations by the government members, including the cabinet. Clearly, on our side we have a very strong, different view of many of the events of Monday.

The only course of action you're recommending leads to a legislative committee, where I think the public will simply find that the government has made up its mind. We in the opposition have an opinion, and rather than seeking the truth and finding the truth, we simply will find that the public is frustrated by the lack of that. Clearly, I understand why you've reached your decision, but in our opinion it is the wrong route.

The public, I think, has a right to a full public hearing on this matter. I call Monday a day of shame, and I think all of us would recognize that. The scenes that the public saw around this Legislature on Monday are totally unacceptable. They are scenes from other countries that we never dreamed we'd ever see here. Someone said if you turned the sound off on the television on Monday night, you would have believed you were seeing scenes from some other country with a situation that all of us would have deplored. But here it was, within yards of this Legislature.

For us, it is a matter of extreme importance. We can understand why you reached your decision, but you said in your closing remarks the matter is finished. With all due respect, I'm afraid it's not finished. In our opinion that is not the right route and in our opinion it is now up to the government to say the matter is so serious -- and certainly if you're getting the same calls we're getting, the public is extremely worried. They are seeing a province divided like it's never been divided before, with the police organizations, for whatever reason, appearing to attack citizens who had no reason to be attacked.

It warrants a public hearing. The legislative committee is not the right route. We find it unfortunate that you've had to make that decision, but it's not one that we would find acceptable here in our caucus.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the response that you've given today, I wish to join with those in questioning the correctness of detailing that it ought to be a legislative committee.

I share the concern of others in terms of the difficult position that you're in, and also the fact that you've said you cannot yourself direct that there be a public inquiry, but you did feel very comfortable going into a great deal of detail about a legislative committee and the hours it ought to keep and the kind of work that it can do. So, clearly I would say to you with great respect, sir, that you then would also have the room to say that you think a public inquiry would be the appropriate vehicle in this case, if you did believe that.

I'm assuming that for some reason you didn't reach that conclusion, although if I took all your arguments from the time you stood up, they would suggest to me that a public inquiry, particularly given the concern here in the opposition benches among both parties as well as the concerns in the public, would be a natural conclusion for you to reach.

I think, Speaker, you need to hear from us, certainly in our party and from what I'm hearing in the Liberals' also, that the idea of sending this to a legislative committee is not a sufficient response by yourself or by the government or by this Parliament. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of officers of this place, including yourself and the Sergeant at Arms, who are a part of that review. Certainly, the Solicitor General, the OPP and perhaps other ministers and members of the Premier's staff may indeed also be part of that.

Given the fact that every legislative committee has a majority of government members, I don't think it's reasonable for the public to believe that there will be a fair and balanced process. It will become a political circus. That's exactly what happens to things that get sent to legislative committees. By their very nature, that is what happens.

That is not to be criticized, but certainly I think that would lead us to believe that a legislative committee will not do what needs to be done, that is, to stand back and take a look at everything that happened before the event, during the event, all the participants, those I've mentioned as well as the strikers, any other public that was nearby as witnesses.

There are a number of players who need to be a part of that process, and the only way the public can be assured that it will be looked at fully without any political consideration is that this entire matter be handed to someone with a mandate to look at this thoroughly, at arm's length from the political process, someone who's respected and is highly regarded across the province. We've seen with a recent legal case that it can be achieved. Therefore, Speaker, you're going to, I believe, find a lot of resistance from us, a great deal of resistance to this just being sent off to a legislative committee and it starts churning through the political process.

I would also reiterate the request that the security plan be tabled today. It's there; there's no reason why it can't be, particularly given that we are still in the process of deciding whether it will be a legislative committee or a public inquiry. It sounds like something's going to happen; it's a question of what. That being the case -- and we're still debating that now -- let's put on the table what's already available, besides the news clippings and witness accounts that we've already heard. That means the plan.

I understand from the media that you may already have received some kind of report. It would be nice to have that shared. I'm a member of the security committee that you've spoken of and I travelled along with you across the province. If that's the place you want to start with it, fine, but that report ought to be here now for part of our deliberations, and again, a part of this is the privileges of the member for Sudbury and what happened outside his office and what happened in his office. All of these things point to the need for an independent public inquiry.

If it's done quickly, I think we can give the confidence to the public that this is being dealt with adequately. Without that, I suggest with great respect that you and the government run the risk of escalating this to a higher level. You're going to hear words of whitewash, cover-up; that's going to start to come out. We don't want that. That's not part of what we want.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: The government members are getting -- see? That's what's happening, Speaker. That's what happens when this goes into a political arena. I urge you to reconsider your suggestion to this place, recommend that it be a public inquiry done at arm's length, and then we don't need to go through the kind of political circus that will continue if you don't, Speaker.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I appreciate the comments that you've made here today and reported back to the members of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Pouliot: I'm sure you do.

Hon Mr Eves: I think the member for Lake Nipigon should just listen to what I'm going to say before he starts criticizing it. That's always a wise policy.

Mr Pouliot: I know you too well.

Hon Mr Eves: Apparently not well enough.

Mr Speaker, I would say to you and to all members of the Legislative Assembly, as I said yesterday, I don't think that any member or any member of society can be particularly proud of the events that happened here on Monday, March 18. I certainly see no reason why all the events of that day should not come to light publicly. I think that the accountability and behaviour of all individuals concerned should be dealt with in as fair and open a process as possible.

I understand your suggestion and your recommendation with respect to the committee of the Legislative Assembly and I also understand, of course, that that committee, as indeed all committees do, has the power to summon people before it, subpoena persons and documentation and evidence. However, it sounds to me like the members of the opposition parties certainly would not be happy or pleased with such a look or an investigation, if you will, or a purview of the situation. If a public inquiry will make them happier, I think it should be pointed out that a public inquiry will cost significantly more money and probably will drag on for a significantly longer period of time.

Mr Christopherson: That's the solution.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): What about people dying on the picket line?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: Excuse me. Why do you have a tough time taking yes for an answer, I say to the member for Cochrane North? I don't understand that.

Mr Cooke: Ernie, you're being sarcastic.

Hon Mr Eves: Talking about being sarcastic, I say to the member for Windsor-Riverside, it doesn't do the entire situation any good to have him refer to the "throne speech riots." He knows full well there were no throne speech riots. I do recall some riots in Toronto. They were on Yonge Street. I'm trying to recall who was in government then. There were some demonstrations here on throne speech day, and it is everybody's political and democratic right to protest.

I guess I would understand, if they want to be political about it, the two opposition parties' concerns about majority committees, because I can recall a few majority committees that I've sat on, when their two parties were in government, investigating individual members of the Legislature. I can understand their concern, that they don't think this would be too appropriately and objectively dealt with.

So I say through you, Mr Speaker, to the members of the opposition and to the people of Ontario, the government has no problem with a public inquiry into this matter and I would be happy to discuss the matter with the other two House leaders tomorrow morning.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): As I'm sure all members are aware, today is the first day since our return to the House that we have experienced severe weather conditions in Ontario. I am sure all members would like to know for the benefit of their constituents and for themselves how the Ministry of Transportation has dealt with the situation.

As in all cases since the strike began, the ministry has focused its efforts and resources on public safety with the goal of maintaining a safe highway system for the travelling public. Prior to the strike, the government and OPSEU negotiated an essential services agreement for highway patrolling, snowplowing, sanding and salting to protect public safety.

Our position going into this negotiation was that 100% of our winter maintenance service should be deemed essential. The union had a different view and we negotiated a compromise. This means that plows and spreaders are called out when the conditions specified in the agreement are present. As members may be aware, we did go back to the table to ensure spreaders can get out where conditions can be expected to lead to ice.

At one point, there were delays of as much as seven hours. We obtained an injunction to prevent OPSEU from delaying our equipment and workers. That means it is now against the law for picketers to delay our people and equipment.

Last night it began snowing across Ontario. The storm is expected to bring as much as 30 centimetres of snow. The ministry was prepared to react as quickly as needed to sand, salt and clear roads as conditions dictated. Unfortunately, the union was ready too -- ready with picketers to delay necessary emergency equipment from leaving patrol yards.

I regret to have to report to the House that our managers have been faced with more delays at our patrol yards, preventing them from getting equipment out in a timely way and making it difficult for people to get to work. For example, at the Brock patrol yard in the GTA this morning, pickets prevented spreaders from leaving for one hour and 40 minutes. Spreading equipment and plows were delayed for more than 40 minutes at Elfrida, one hour at Beaver Dams, one hour at Strathroy and three hours at Burlington. At a patrol yard in the Chatham district today, nine OPSEU plow operators were called in to work.

Not one responded. If it were not for the one contract plow that we had available, we would have had no plows on the road in that area.

I am aware that the union is at the Ontario Labour Relations Board today alleging the ministry has violated the essential services agreement for winter highway maintenance. But I am happy to report that our managers have succeeded in getting most of our resources out on the road. I would like to commend our managers, the workers who are coming in and our contractors for their efforts in very difficult circumstances.

Safety of the travelling public is a priority for the government. An essential services agreement for winter highway maintenance was negotiated with the union prior to the strike, with the intent of protecting public safety. I want to remind Ontario's seven million drivers that throughout the strike they must remain vigilant in monitoring weather and driving conditions since highway maintenance is not at the full service levels the travelling public has come to expect. Avoid using the provincial highway system when the weather makes driving conditions poor.

When trips cannot be cancelled, motorists should reduce speed, increase following distance and allow more time to arrive at their destination.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I don't think the baiting and the continual whining by the minister and the finger-pointing are really going to make our roads safer in Ontario through this very difficult strike. I wonder whether the minister asked the whiz-kid advisers, who told him probably that this strike was going to be good for their popularity, whether this strike would have an impact on Ontarians and their safety. I'm sure the minister said, "This is probably going to be a great strike for Tory popularity," but he should have stopped to ask, "How is this strike going to affect real people?" We've seen that, and it is endangering the lives of people when the roads aren't plowed.

It's also somewhat hypocritical. This is the same minister who in October arbitrarily, behind closed doors, made massive cuts to winter road maintenance. He cut back on snowplowing, on sanding, on salting, behind closed doors, didn't tell anybody and hoped that nobody would notice. I guess he thought the same thing would happen with this strike. He thought somehow his political popularity, the party's political popularity could be advanced by basically holding the drivers of Ontario hostage to their political agenda. That's what is really at stake here.

If the minister and the government side were really interested in doing something about public safety on our roads, they would sit down and stop the finger-pointing, the baiting, the intimidation, and bargain, in good faith, a collective agreement that would end this political strike. This is a strike that hurts the people of Ontario, and the blame lies squarely at your feet, Minister. You're laughing about it and you think it's a big joke, and I think you should start to take it seriously. The people of Ontario don't want finger-pointing; they want you to be responsible for what you get paid for.

You've got the limo, Mr Minister. You have to make the decisions and you have to do your job. Blaming other people and passing the buck doesn't keep the roads safe. So stop baiting and urge your colleagues to end this strike. That's what you should be doing.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The advice that has been given by the member for Oakwood is very good advice to the minister. I was very surprised to see, in the midst of very delicate negotiations -- I understand there's a blackout now on what's happening behind the closed doors -- very surprised to hear that the minister would get up in this House, when the negotiations are going on, to make a statement of that kind.

Whether the minister is factually correct or whether he holds these views, that's one thing, but using judgement in very difficult times -- many of us spoke yesterday and the day before about the fact that the situation in Ontario is difficult because we have continued rubbing in the face of people who disagree with this government by members of this government.

The OPSEU people out on the picket lines obviously feel very strongly about their particular case. The government negotiators should be trying to come to an agreement, a good collective agreement, and this is not helped -- considerably -- by either the statements of the Premier that I've heard from time to time or the kind of statement the minister has made in the House today.

It will certainly make the job of the Chair of Management Board much more difficult when he has to have his people go back to the negotiating table knowing that once again you've got the kerosene can out, you've been spreading the gasoline, and you're about to strike the match and throw it.

That is not helpful to the negotiating process. We all hope a collective agreement can be reached as soon as possible. We hope that members of the government, in a moderate, conciliatory and consensus-building fashion, will try to reach that agreement, and the statement the minister has made today certainly does not contribute to a good atmosphere in those negotiations.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): An amazing example of competitive sameness with not much substance, Mr Minister. In fact, the minister is not announcing anything. He merely uses the rules, the provisions, under ministerial statements, to join a long list of apologists for the government.

Well, hear this, Mr Speaker. This is the same minister, the same person who, prior to the work stoppage, prior to the strike, deliberately, systematically cut $6.9 million out of the winter standard program, the result of which was fewer patrol staff. People were pink-slipped, were told, "We don't need you any more to patrol our roads and highways." This is the same minister who deliberately made the use of salt rock and sanders less visible, because simply they weren't there.

This is the same minister who said, "If you get caught during a snowstorm, use your cellular phone and call the OPP." The same minister wakes up one morning and says, "This is Canada" -- and it's winter, Mr Speaker -- sees himself under a state of siege, declares war. In war you attack. You attack the people at MTO. Oh, very good for morale. You grab a club. He's a fast learner.

Before the work stoppage, during the work stoppage and, with this minister and this government, likely after the work stoppage, one would be hard-pressed to see the differences, for the budget at MTO when it comes to winter maintenance has been reduced significantly. So no wonder people are put at risk.

Let's talk about truck safety. Let's talk about the safety of motorists. I must say that the minister, when it comes to the safety of motorists, has an immaculate record. He's done nothing for the lives and safety and peace of mind of seven million of us, women and men who possess the privilege of a licence in good --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Standing.

Mr Pouliot: -- in good standing. Thank you.

In northwestern, northeastern, southeastern and southwestern Ontario -- and not only by virtue of an agreement on essential services -- many, many people went beyond the call of duty, almost took it upon themselves without being told, and said: "Look, safety is in jeopardy. I will declare myself an essential worker." They're not noticed. Instead, he looks in the mirror, turns around and blames men and women. As an employer, you're blaming your employees. The general is blaming the front-liners. How can you?

You met with your political staff, you dimmed the lights, you scared one another and you came out of the meeting with three heads so you could scare people. Look at yourself. Look at what you're doing to the morale of people instead of becoming an agent provocateur. There's still time to do it.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just wanted to say to the minister simply this on the statement: He stands in this House and he says to us that the highways are in terrible shape, all because of the OPSEU strike. Minister, what happened prior to the OPSEU strike? The reality is, Highway 11 and Highway 101, driving up to Timmins, Kirkland Lake and Kapuskasing, have never been in the shape that we have seen them over the period of this winter. I, on one trip alone prior to the strike, counted 12 cars in the ditch, from North Bay up to Kirkland Lake.

Highway 11 from Kirkland Lake all the way up to Timmins is nothing but a sheet of ice and has been for a two-month period. It's a sorry state of affairs when the minister tries to blame everything on OPSEU.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I think all of us on the opposition benches welcome what we think is a commitment on the part of the government, through the statement of the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Premier, that there will be a public inquiry.

I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I am extremely concerned, however, that in making that seeming commitment, the minister has also indicated he's doing that because the opposition parties have demanded it, because it's all that will satisfy the opposition parties. The minister shakes his head. Those are the minister's words.

I am concerned that the minister refers to the time lines, Mr Speaker, which you also referred to, and that that can become a reason for dragging this issue out until hopefully the immediacy of the issue is lost.

I'm concerned that the minister would see fit, as always, to express concern about the cost of what the opposition parties are demanding, as opposed to simply saying, "This is something which we in government believe is necessary regardless of cost, and that is, to investigate police actions against citizens."

I think it is absolutely essential that we determine the government's understanding of what happened on Monday and why indeed a full public inquiry is needed and why the issue is not all of the issues on the table, as the minister has suggested, but it is the issue of -- not security of members; the assembly can deal with that --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mrs McLeod: -- it is an issue of police action against citizens.

My question indeed, Mr Speaker, will be to the Premier, because I want the Premier's understanding and his comments on what has happened over the last two days. Premier, you may be well aware that there are CBC reports that one of your senior advisers has in fact blamed officers of the Metropolitan Toronto Police for the violence that happened out here Monday. I need to know, Premier, whether or not you agree with your senior adviser and whether it is the position of the government of Ontario today that the Metro police, who were actually involved in stepping in and protecting picketers from the actions of the OPP riot squad, were the cause of Monday's violence.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think questions dealing with full public inquiry ought to be handled by the Deputy Premier and the House leader, who's handling this.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I believe I also indicated when I was addressing the assembly a little earlier this afternoon that everybody, including we on this side of the House, wants a full public airing of the issues and the events of Monday. We also want to be able to look at the actions of everybody concerned on those days. We have no preconceived ideas of restrictions of any kind. As I indicated yesterday, we were waiting for the Speaker's report; we got that today.

We don't have a problem with a full public inquiry and I indicated that I'm quite prepared to discuss it with the two House leaders tomorrow morning at our House leaders' meeting.

Mrs McLeod: My question was placed to the Premier because it was reportedly a senior member of his staff who made the statement that the Metro police were to blame for the violence. There are statements that have been made by senior members of this government, directly reported in the media, that do lay blame. Those statements need to be clarified or retracted in order to set the record straight before there can be a full public inquiry. That's an issue we need to pursue today, I say to the Deputy Premier, who has now been given the responsibility by his Premier to answer that.

I take you back to the issue of a senior staff member in the Premier's office blaming the Metro police. I think that's a serious charge. You haven't denied it happened; I was expecting some retraction, some statement that you as a government do not believe that it was the Metro police who were to blame.

We'd like to also understand why for some reason the Metro police public order unit, which was standing by, was never called even though Wellesley Street was in its jurisdiction. But beyond that, I say to the Deputy Premier that this situation was so clearly mishandled that we've even had shocking descriptions coming from Paul Walter, a spokesman for the Metro police, that they were disgusted by the actions of the riot squad. "Whack 'em and stack 'em" was the order that the riot squad was given. Yesterday the Solicitor General, your colleague responsible for the OPP, called their reactions a model of restraint.

So I ask whether or not your government still describes an order to whack 'em and stack 'em as a model of restraint.

Hon Mr Eves: I'm certainly not going to comment on statements attributed to or alleged to have been made by members of anybody's staff; I'm sure everybody has an opinion. Surely exactly this type of information will come out during the course of the public inquiry that we've agreed to.

Mrs McLeod: Well then, Deputy Premier, let me attempt to clarify what your intention is with the public inquiry, because from everything that we have heard in the last two days, everything we've had reported in the media and everything we've heard from members of our caucus and members of their staff, what we saw in the behaviour of the OPP riot squad was not just a spontaneous overreaction. We know that members of the squad went charging into that crowd whipped up, that they had been doing drills.

They not only had burst into the office of the member for Sudbury but they were in the hallways banging on their shields, banging on the walls and chanting in order to be whipped up before they charged into the crowd.

I ask the Deputy Premier whether he will agree that these are the issues that need to be dealt with in a public inquiry, that the issue for a public inquiry is not the question of security of members, which can be dealt with through a Legislative Assembly committee; the issue is the police behaviour in response to citizens on a legal picket line and the issue is who is responsible for that. Who ordered the OPP riot squads in? Who ordered them out into that crowd? Who gave them their instructions? Will that be the clear focus of an independent public inquiry?

Hon Mr Eves: I believe I've indicated previously today, and I will do so again, that I believe that the actions and behaviour of all concerned on Monday will be the subject of the public inquiry, and whomever is charged with the responsibility of conducting that inquiry I'm sure will look into all of these matters.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mrs McLeod: I find that a wholly unsatisfactory answer. I need some commitment from this government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: We are not looking for a public inquiry in order to have the government be able to sweep all of the questions under the rug until hopefully the issue is forgotten or at least less in people's memories, and clearly that's the direction of the government in answering the questions today.

The Speaker: Who's your question to?

Mrs McLeod: My second question is to the Solicitor General, who has a direct responsibility for the Ontario Provincial Police, because the issue that a public inquiry must address -- and again I say, and you've said it yourself, Mr Speaker, a Legislative Assembly committee can review the issues of security of this precinct and of its members. The issue that we called for a public inquiry on was the behaviour of the riot squad of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Minister, I'll say to you directly, you are quoted as saying that the actions of the OPP, in your view as the individual minister responsible for the OPP, were a model of restraint. I assume that since you've made that statement you've seen the slow-motion version of the CBC tape that showed an OPP riot officer, unprovoked, charging up to Mr Giles, blindsiding Mr Giles with the back of his shield --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having a hard time to hear the member's question.

Mrs McLeod: Clearly the members of the Conservative caucus did not listen to the press conference given by Mr Giles, who made it as clear as he possibly could that he abhors violence, that he was not provocative in any way, and that he does not understand why OPP riot police pushed him into a group of officers and then proceeded to hit him in the head.

I'm asking the Solicitor General whether he has seen the CFTO tape that depicts exactly the same scene, whether he has seen the tape of the riot squad practising charge drills in the halls of the Whitney Block, whether he's asked the Metro police for copies of their tape, and whether, if he has seen all of that, he would now retract that statement he made that the OPP behaviour was a model of restraint --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Minister,

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I will give the Leader of the Opposition the benefit of the doubt and lay the responsibility for the question at the doorstep of a poor research staff, because I did not say that at all. This has been taken totally out of context. I commented on my own personal experience and said at the time that I have made no judgement whatsoever in terms of what happened in a broader context.

You've heard today that that whole question is being referred to a public inquiry, and apparently you're having difficulty in coming up with additional questions to deal with this issue today because we've answered your concerns. As the House leader said earlier, you can't take yes for an answer.

Mrs McLeod: No, I don't fault this on faulty research. I in fact was in this House yesterday when I heard the Solicitor General respond to my questions with an assurance that he felt that the OPP officers were doing just exactly what it was that they were expected to do in the defence of citizens of this province. So I feel entirely justified in asking the Solicitor General whether he has now had time to see the evidence that the public of Ontario has now seen and is prepared to retract those statements.

I'm also aware, Solicitor General, that in this morning's discussions, and this was a direct report, you indicated that you had seen the OPP tape and that you would be prepared to release that. I think it's important, Minister, that before there is any public inquiry, you make it absolutely clear that you see your position as Solicitor General as being one of carrying out a full, independent inquiry and not seeing your role as the defender of the Ontario Provincial Police. It would certainly not be sufficient to release the OPP tapes, because there's considerable other evidence.

Will you ensure that this inquiry will have your commitment in looking fully into the behaviour and actions and excessive use of force of the OPP riot squad and that it will have access to all the available evidence?

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: This is puzzling, to say the least, because the House leader for the government has indicated he's going to meet with the House leaders of the two opposition parties tomorrow. They will discuss the terms of reference. This is going to be an independent public inquiry, and I'm sure it will deal with all of the questions raised.

As the House leader has indicated, we do not want any issue related to this incident -- which no one is happy about -- OPSEU is not happy about what happened on Monday, the police are certainly not happy about it, and we want to look at all elements surrounding what happened in the Queen's Park precinct on Monday. That's the answer to your question.

Mrs McLeod: If the Solicitor General is puzzled, I can tell him that I'm somewhat puzzled too. We've tried to establish the fact -- quite frankly, I think the attempts of the government to put this issue under the table are very deliberate and only too clear to everybody in this House.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Come on. You ask for an inquiry, we give it to you and you say it's under the table.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I will try once more in my second supplementary to the minister to establish the fact that there are two separate issues, and I defer to your judgement in recognizing that there are two separate issues. There is an issue of security and access to the building, which legislators addressed, which can be addressed by the Legislative Assembly committee, which is an all-party committee.

There is a second issue, the issue which for us is the predominant issue, and that is the excessive use of force of the OPP riot squad against Ontario citizens. There is agreement on the part of the Speaker and the members of the opposition caucuses that that issue cannot be addressed by a legislative committee, that it can only be addressed by a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, which you, Minister, or your colleagues are responsible for calling. This is not something which requires all-party agreement, although we're happy to give you our input.

So I'm asking, will you agree, commit to a public inquiry that addresses all of these questions with all of the evidence, the public inquiry that the government only can order by order in council: who designed the security plan and approved the plan; what part the use of the OPP riot squad was in that plan; who decided to use the OPP squad instead of the Metro police unit; and whether this public inquiry will answer the most important question, and that is, how could trained officers --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: It's clear that our decision to support the request for a public inquiry has thrown a curve at the Liberal question period strategy which they can't come to grips with. We have agreed to everything, all the questions the leader is posing. I'm sure that the House leader on the government side of the House would have no difficulty with you attending the meeting tomorrow with the House leaders to discuss your concerns and have input into the final decision with respect to that matter.

Mrs McLeod: We are giving you our input. We are just asking for a commitment.

Hon Mr Runciman: We did. We've agreed. We agreed some time ago.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On behalf of our caucus, I would say that we're very pleased that the government House leader has agreed to the request of our caucus and the Liberal caucus for a full public inquiry, and we look forward to discussions around the terms of reference and the parameters of that inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. We would hope that this will not be a long-drawn-out process but it will be full and public, and I will not go further than that. I think it's time for us to get back to the issue at hand, the substantive issue, and that is settling the strike and ensuring that we get the services that the people of the province require back in place.

The Speaker: Who is your question to?

JOB SECURITY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I will pose a question to the Premier. This is following up on the exchange the Premier and I had in this place on Monday when I asked him a question regarding successor rights. At that time, you will recall, I asked the Premier why he chose to provoke a confrontation by stripping successor rights from Ontario government workers when those rights were enjoyed by everyone else in the private and public sectors in Ontario.

In response, the Premier gave a rather silly reaction that he thought I was proposing that we should deny those rights to the private sector workers who now continue to enjoy them in Ontario. The Premier also said that the government was not necessarily committed to privatization.

With that in mind, I would ask the Premier why it is that the government has taken the position that led it to legislate away those successor rights, which helped to precipitate this labour dispute, and if the government is not committed necessarily to privatization, then is he prepared in these negotiations to have the government restore those rights to the public sector workers and have them treated fairly and the same as all other workers in this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the issue of negotiations would be best handled by the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We've made it clear through these negotiations that we intend to be fair to our employees. However, we must also be fair to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario and we must be fair to those who need services not only today but five years from now, 10 years from now. So this government does need to restructure. This government does need to look at all methods of alternative delivery. Consequently, that's the reason we took the action on successor rights.

I will remind the leader of the third party that successor rights does not apply in the province of Newfoundland, the province of Prince Edward Island, the province of Nova Scotia, the province of New Brunswick, the province of Alberta, the federal government. Those governments understand that they have to restructure as well and deal with their individual situations.

Our individual situation is a $100-billion debt, deficits of $10 billion a year, and a need to deliver better services for less. As a result, we have taken this action to be able to restructure the province of Ontario, and that's the course that we've clearly set out.

Having said that, we have indicated that we would pursue reasonable efforts to assist the employees to go with the job if the job is privatized or divested or outsourced.

Mr Wildman: We are not here talking about Newfoundland or the Maritime provinces. We are talking about Ontario, the largest and most important economy in Canada. Why is it that this government has to equate itself and harmonize itself down to the lowest common denominator? Why is this government not prepared to lead in labour negotiations in this province? Why is this government not prepared to do as previous Conservative governments have done, and that is, in the area of labour relations in Canada, be seen as a progressive, leading province?

Is it not the case that this government is determined to sell off public sector services to their friends, and in doing so to sell off the jobs of the workers who are out on the picket lines today?

Hon David Johnson: I didn't quite catch the reference to Newfoundland. I hope the member didn't say that Newfoundland was the lowest. I'm sure we wouldn't --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon David Johnson: I'm sure the member would withdraw that remark.

I'll tell you the reason. The reason is because between 1985 and 1990 spending got out of control in the provincial government. Between 1990 and 1995, we incurred $10-billion deficits each and every year for five successive years. The total debt of the province of Ontario is now $100 billion. That's the problem we face. That's the problem many of these other governments do not face. Many of the governments indeed have balanced the books. That's what we're trying to achieve.

We're trying to achieve that by restructuring the government, by delivering better services to the people of the province of Ontario, doing it by exploring many different alternatives, including privatization, including outsourcing, including contracting out.

We are going to make our best efforts. We have committed to making best efforts to move the employees with the jobs, but we have to have the freedom, the flexibility to deliver the best possible services to the people of Ontario at the lowest cost, because of the spending and the deficits of the two previous governments.

Mr Wildman: The Chair of Management Board knows full well that what I was suggesting is that this government should be leading in labour relations in this country; it should not be following other provinces that may not enjoy the same rights we've come to enjoy in this province. The minister has to make clear, in responding to my question, why he continues the mantra of the cost that government is experiencing, the cost of the contract, when he knows full well that successor rights do not cost the taxpayers of this province one red cent.

If the government wants a settlement and the government doesn't want to spend more money, why aren't you putting issues on the table that can in fact lead to a settlement that won't cost a great deal of money?

Hon David Johnson: I wish to assure the leader of the third party that in fact we are bargaining for a settlement. I think we have demonstrated that in terms of striking a tentative agreement with AMAPCEO, which I hope very much will be ratified today. I will say that the issues we've dealt with on AMAPCEO, the second-largest union of the province of Ontario, were those very issues, the job security issues, that are of concern to the leader of the third party.

We are a leader in labour relations. We have offered, through this contract, pension improvements. We have offered severance improvements. We have a pension plan for the members of the Ontario public service, a very generous defined, indexed pension plan for the members of the public service here in the province of Ontario that hardly any workers, probably less than 10% of the workers in Ontario, would have access to.

Now it's time for this province, in addition to our excellent labour relations history, to take leadership in terms of job creation, in terms of delivering job creation in the private sector, setting the table, balancing the books, doing better with less money through this government. Other governments are doing that. Even the federal government is attempting to do that. It's time that the province of Ontario took those actions.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Minister of Education and Training. The minister will know that in the last number of days hundreds of teachers have been on the picket lines in solidarity with OPSEU members, the reason being that they know that after this government gets through cutting about 20,000 to 27,000 jobs, whatever the exact number is, the teachers are next. They also know that the government has made its promise, the Conservative Party's promise in the election campaign of last year not to cut classroom expenditures, a real sham by its actions, and they know that there are thousands of layoff notices that have already been given out and that are pending.

For example, the Peel Board of Education has issued 519 layoff notices; Halton Board of Education, layoffs of over 1,500; 950 layoffs in Simcoe county; over 1,000 layoffs in Hamilton-Wentworth; over 500 in Kitchener-Waterloo. That's over 4,500 in just five school boards in the province.

You can't fool the public that you can make these kinds of layoffs and cuts and still not affect classroom education. Nobody in this province voted on June 8 for these kinds of layoffs of teachers and cuts in education. Can the minister explain to the House how these layoffs can be achieved by boards across the province and at the same time you can maintain the commitment not to adversely affect classroom education in Ontario?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the leader of the third party for the question today. I believe that the people of Ontario voted on June 8 for less government spending, for smaller government, and for a return of the province to opportunity, possibility and vitality that will happen because this government takes on the very real challenges and problems that this province faces.

With regard to education, I think it's very clear, if you talk to your colleague from Windsor-Riverside, the Sweeney commission that he appointed reported, a matter of a few weeks ago, that some 47% of the almost $14 billion that's spent in the province of Ontario on education is spent outside of the classroom. Mr Sweeney's commission suggested that that should be lowered to 40%, and that in fact would reflect a saving of $1 billion.

That's the report that was commissioned by your government from a former member of the Liberal Party that sat in this House. I think that there's every indication that we can have a more affordable system, a more accountable system, and a higher-quality education system in this province.

Mr Wildman: The minister did not respond to the question. The question was on layoffs of teachers in this province and how you could continue with these kinds of layoffs and not adversely affect classroom education. This government is taking $1 billion out of education in one year, and that is producing the situation where boards are laying off staff. How can you have 4,500 people laid off in just five school boards in this province, with more to come across the province, and not affect classroom education? We're not talking in this question about outside classroom education; teachers are in the classroom. How can you lay off those teachers and not affect classroom education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Well, I think the honourable member knows that teachers are not the direct employees of the province, they are the employees of the boards of education, and I think that the leader of the third party has been --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Perhaps the members opposite would like to hear this response. It might be edifying for them. Perhaps the leader of the third party --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- should talk to the school boards. Perhaps he should find out if having the teachers in the classroom is exactly what educators in this province want. They want teachers in the classroom making a difference with students. That's the direction that education is going in this province.

Mr Wildman: This is not acceptable and it's not just happening at the primary and secondary levels. Because of this government's actions with regard to funding at the post-secondary level, as well as the elementary and secondary levels, our community colleges in this province are in chaos.

There have been about 2,300 jobs eliminated from community colleges across the province so far, as many as 1,100 part-time jobs have been eliminated in the community colleges as well, and there's more to come: 80 jobs at Canadore College in North Bay; 63 jobs at Georgian College in Barrie and Parry Sound; 200 jobs at George Brown College here in Toronto; 150 jobs at Mohawk College in Hamilton; 120 jobs at Algonquin College in Ottawa; 90 jobs at Confederation College in Thunder Bay.

The colleges are saying that these layoffs are directly associated with the cuts that you have made in funding for post-secondary education.

How can you guarantee community college classroom education will not suffer in this province with these kinds of layoffs and program cancellations that are directly related to the funding cuts that you have announced?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's a pleasure to give answer to that question. Let me reiterate. The report that was just recently released by the Sweeney commission indicates that 47% of our spending in education happens outside of the classroom in this province, and so this government can live up to its commitment not to affect classroom education and have a more affordable system.

As far as colleges are concerned, I think the honourable member knows we are committed to a discussion paper with the colleges and universities in this province, to make sure we have a rationalization of programs that work for the future of this province and for the future of the people of this province.

I believe the honourable member will know that colleges have recently announced the cancellation of some programs offered in the GTA. We now have five nursing programs offered in the GTA and perhaps there might be some room for rationalization of these publicly funded programs. We're encouraging that discussion, we're encouraging that dialogue, and we intend to make the college system in the province better.

TTC SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): A question to the Minister of Transportation: As you know, you've been unequivocal in your support for the funding of the Sheppard subway, which is going to be a commitment of 75% of the $1-billion cost.

The problem, though, is that you've been very silent as a result of the inquest into the horrible accident that occurred last August, the subway crash. That inquest, as you know, directed you to make funding of good repair and safety on the TTC the number one priority. Your silence on responding to that is putting, I think, the good repair program into jeopardy and the Sheppard subway into jeopardy. Why are you not responding to that very specific directive from the jury, which said that the province must make safety and good repair a priority?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): We were concerned to hear about the safety issue, obviously, from the coroner's report. Metro and the TTC have an obligation to make sure their transit system is safe for Ontarians to use, for Torontonians to use.

We have a separate issue here from the Sheppard subway. It was a commitment that was made prior.

In terms of the additional funding the TTC is requesting, I want to say this: We are a funding partner; how they spend the money is basically up to them. We are in the position of coming up with our financial statement in the spring. The Minister of Finance is going to allot me the money that we're going to be using, and I will be able to give the TTC an answer on the funds they will be allocated.

Mr Colle: I don't know if the minister's read this specific recommendation of the jury. It says, "We recommend and emphasize the province of Ontario" -- that's the minister -- "and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto recognize the first funding priority is the state of good repair." In other words, you have the responsibility. You do not, I hope, just sign the cheques. You are giving that money in partnership. You have control over where that money is spent and you are directed by the province to do something about the safety and the good repair.

Why not say you're going to do what the jury is recommending and spend money on safety and good repair, so you don't jeopardize the Sheppard subway and the safety and good repair, as you're doing right now by not responding?

Hon Mr Palladini: We intend to review all the recommendations in detail and work with Metro to ensure the safety. Through its normal budget allocation process the ministry will consider the TTC's request. I don't have that number available to share with the member.

Mr Colle: It's not the TTC. It's the jury that's telling you to put money towards TTC safety.

Hon Mr Palladini: I think I have answered your question. We intend to review all the recommendations of the inquest, work with Metro, work with the TTC, that safety is going to be maintained as a priority. I've answered your question.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. In a campaign document called Report of the Mike Harris Task Force on Rural Economic Development, you said, "Under a Mike Harris government agriculture will regain its fair share of government support." Then you say, "There are no cuts to agricultural programs in our policy plan the Common Sense Revolution."

In July, following the election, your Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs announced a cut to his ministry's budget of $13 million, in November he announced a further cut of $13.1 million and now he is musing around the province about further reductions of 30% to 35% in the ministry budget. Premier, does this sound like a broken promise to you?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

Mr Hampton: The Premier says that it doesn't sound like a broken promise to him. Premier, I want to read to you a letter. It's a letter from your own rural caucus advisory committee and rural MPPs. This is signed by, I believe, 13 of your rural caucus colleagues who are here. It says: "The OMAFRA budget was cut from $590 million to $450 million....

It is now proposed that we approve a further cut of $156 million in 1996-97." Your colleagues, your members say, "Agriculture has had its fair share of cuts in the past." Then they refer to your promises and they say to you -- you got a copy of it -- "The rural caucus advisory committee agreed unanimously on February 14, 1996 that the government should honour the Premier's commitment in the Common Sense Revolution and its Rural Economic Development policy booklet that there be `no cuts to the OMAFRA budget.'" They respectfully requested a discussion with you.

Do you still insist that there is not a promise broken to the farmers of this province?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGER

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Health. I understand that the minister recently gave his final approval to the establishment of an MRI unit is Sudbury. However, Ontario continues to lag behind other jurisdictions in the use of this vital technology. MRIs can detect brain and spinal diseases, several forms of cancer, musculoskeletal disorders and several cardiovascular conditions that may not be diagnosed by other means of testing. It makes good common sense to ensure that Ontarians have access to the most advanced health care technologies.

I wonder if the minister might reassure the House that he remains committed to reinvesting health care savings into additional MRI units and that, knowing the importance of these units, he'll make further announcements as soon as possible.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I want to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for his question because I think it's important that the people of Ontario receive the best diagnostic services available in the world today. MRI units, or magnetic-resonance-imaging units, are state-of-the-art technology. The goal of this government in reinvesting savings that we found through many of the line items in the current Ministry of Health budget is to increase the current number of MRI units from 12 that we have across the province to 23 over the next few months.

I say to the member for Scarborough Centre that we've already begun that process, as he mentioned in his question, in making the announcement recently in Sudbury for a new MRI unit in Sudbury along with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources and Northern Development and Mines. We also made an announcement in Timmins recently. I would think the opposition would be delighted that the first MRI machines to come on line in many years in this province are in their ridings and are good news for the people of northern Ontario.

I say to the member from Scarborough that there are another 21 machines and that we'll be addressing central Ontario and his area of the province in the very near future.

Mr Newman: Yesterday, I had the honour of bringing to the attention of this House the 40th anniversary of Scarborough General Hospital. The Scarborough hospitals group has provided the minister with a proposal that would locate the first MRI unit in Scarborough at Scarborough General Hospital. Scarborough, a city of more than half a million residents, does not currently have an MRI unit. As a supplementary, I would ask the minister if he is committed to ensuring that MRI technology is available to my constituents in Scarborough Centre and other residents of Scarborough.

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm pleased to assure the honourable member for Scarborough Centre that certainly Scarborough is one of the many areas in the province that we're looking at in making a reinvestment in an MRI unit. The goal of the government is to bring the ratio of units to population from one to 350,000 people in the population -- one unit for every 350,000 people, which would finally bring Ontario up to world standards, in fact European standards. So we're really catching up to the rest of the world.

I would comment, because this is important, when we make an announcement, whether it be in health care or other announcements in this government, because of the new accounting system, we pay for these announcements when they're announced, unlike the previous government that talked about bringing MRI units on line in this province. You didn't budget for them. We found the money through savings in the health care, sealed the health care envelope. We're reinvesting that money. It's been good news for Timmins, good news for Sudbury, good news for the north, and we'll have some more good news for central Ontario and the rest of the people of the province.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I would like to read a letter sent by Mike Harris to regional chairman Terry Cooke: "A Mike Harris government will support and fund a full-fledged expressway up to and including the six-lane model which was originally approved."

The letter to the chairman would have been a provincial commitment of $182 million for a six-lane expressway. The region scaled the project back to five lanes for a provincial cost of $150 million. This government has betrayed that commitment by a funding shortfall of $50 million. They have only funded $100 million of the $150 million which the Premier's commitment was for. The government and this minister obviously do not understand the need for the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mr Agostino: You don't understand the betrayal. Mike Harris gave his word to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.

Minister, will you commit today to restore full funding to the Red Hill Creek Expressway, or do you realize that by refusing to do so, you are ending the political career of your four Tory members in Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I am really at a loss for words. Here's the same member who didn't want the expressway built. Not too long ago he didn't want it built. The Red Hill Creek Expressway is a firm commitment that the Premier made and it's a commitment that we will fulfil and maintain.

Mr Agostino: I think that this minister obviously doesn't understand Hamilton, doesn't know what the expressway is all about, and it is absolutely ridiculous and asinine for this minister to suggest somewhere along the line that I haven't supported the expressway.

Mr Speaker, let me tell you who doesn't support the expressway. Let me tell you --

The Speaker: I have a feeling that one word was a little unparliamentary and I would ask if the member would withdraw it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I don't know whether the members think it's fun or not, but it's a serious question and I want to hear it.

Mr Agostino: The commitment made by this government was for a full-fledged six-lane expressway. The regional chairman has made it very clear that the provincial funding falls over $50 million short of the six-lane expressway, or the five-lane. It cannot be done with the money that you have given to the region. It's very clear.

The regional chairman, who has been supportive of the efforts in the negotiations -- your local members are running and hiding. They're afraid to deal with the media. They don't want to talk about the expressway.

The Premier committed to this. I can tell you, based on the discrepancy, either the regional chairman is lying or this government is lying.

The Speaker: Put your question, please.

Mr Agostino: I can tell you that I know the regional chairman, I know the issue, and he is not lying, and I can finish that sentence outside the House.

Minister, in view of the discrepancy, in view of the funding difference between what you have committed and what the region says they need, will you agree to an independent third-party review of the cost of finishing the expressway and abide by those results of the independent review?

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Palladini: The question that the member has asked, I have already agreed to.

Interjections: What?

Hon Mr Palladini: An independent proposal.

AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question now is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture this: It's clear when I read this letter from Barb Fisher, the MPP for Bruce; Mr Vankoughnet, the MPP for Frontenac-Addington; Helen Johns, the MPP for Huron; Bert Johnson, the MPP for Perth; Gary Stewart, the MPP for Peterborough -- it's clear to me when I read this letter to the Premier and to the Deputy Premier about cuts to agriculture that your own backbenchers believe that you have broken a promise not to cut the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

I wonder, can you explain how all these backbenchers feel that you have broken a promise, and yet the Premier says it's okay?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): It's interesting, the question coming from my honourable critic. You know, before the Christmas break they were very concerned about funding for an ethanol project. We found $8 million to fund ethanol. On the GRIP program, we went from 80% to 85%, another promise that was kept. On the farm tax rebate, something that the opposition figured was gone, we paid the full 75% back as we promised. I could use up the rest of question period, but I won't. I'll allow the honourable member a supplementary.

Mr Hampton: It's apparent that the Minister of Agriculture thinks this is a laughing matter. I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture this is not a laughing matter. You have cut, your government has cut, $26.1 million from the agricultural budget already.

You are proposing to cut, and your own colleagues say this, a further $156 million in this coming fiscal year, and yet your own colleagues in the rural caucus advisory committee agreed unanimously on February 14, 1996, that the government should honour the Premier's commitment in the Common Sense Revolution and its Rural Economic Development policy booklet that there be no cuts to the OMAFRA budget. The motion was moved by Bert Johnson, MPP for Perth, seconded by Toby Barrett, MPP for Norfolk, and passed unanimously by your full rural advisory caucus.

They believe you're breaking a promise. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It's important for everyone to understand that the people who created the financial problem are attempting to prevent us from solving it. Farmers have told us they want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. The budget my colleague will bring in in May will be the real answer.

DEER POPULATION

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Many hunters and outdoor enthusiasts in my riding of Hastings-Peterborough enjoy the sport of deer hunting and in fact deer watching. In light of the particularly harsh winter, with record cold temperatures and snowfalls, many of my constituents are concerned about the declining white-tailed deer herds. Could the minister please report to the House the status of Ontario's deer population at present?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I'd like to thank the member for Hastings-Peterborough. This is a very important issue and of concern to residents right across Ontario. As he's mentioned, we have had a particularly severe winter. Similar winters in 1958-59 and 1971-72 resulted in significant herd die-offs. This year, I'm pleased to announce in the House and to the member that the white-tailed deer herd in Ontario is in good shape.

The reason for that, even though we've had a severe winter, is the excellent cooperation we've had with global conservation clubs and provincial organizations which have cut trails in deer yards and raised funds for the controlled winter deer feed program. I want to thank them on behalf of the MNR.

Mr Danford: I would deal more specifically with the Peterson Road deer yard in my riding. The minister mentioned the number of white-tailed deer. Often we find they do tend to yard, if you want to call it that, in large herds during a particularly severe winter, and we have had that sort of winter in our area. I have received numerous calls from my constituents who are concerned about the conservation implications of hunting deer when they are concentrated in such a confined area. Minister, will these concerns be raised when the Ontario government begins negotiations with the 1996 Algonquin hunting agreement? Can you address those concerns?

Hon Mr Hodgson: This is a serious conservation issue, the harvesting of deer when they're yarded. I've spoken to a number of individuals about this matter, and I know it's of concern to everyone in Ontario. I've asked that this issue and this concern be dealt with in the context of the 1996 Algonquin hunting agreement, which is under negotiation between the Ontario government and the first nation at this time.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. You will know that in the pre-budget report of the committee on finance, they have acknowledged that Ontario is in a significant jobs crisis. In fact, we're well behind numbers laid out in your plan for the campaign on jobs. Specifically, Ontario youth has a major problem, facing a 30% unemployment rate. I'd like to know what your government is planning to do to address the youth employment issue.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very happy to answer the question. You are aware, as are the rest of the people in the House, that we made a projection -- and the Premier referred to it yesterday -- of creating 725,000 new jobs over five years. I'm happy to report to the member that in the month of February there were 31,000 new jobs created in Ontario. I'm happy to say that that is the best February improvement we've had since 1981. I think if the member reflects on those statistics, she will realize that that is just a sample of what's to come and it's going to help our young people.

Mrs Pupatello: I need to make it very clear that regardless that the minister doesn't answer the question, he predicted 145,000 a year, not 30,000, so you're still well behind. We asked specifically about youth employment and what you're planning to do for youth and what are the programs that you'll be dealing with.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Youth.

Mrs Pupatello: Youth. Youth unemployment standing at 30%.

Now, specifically there are rumours that you are cutting the youth venture program so that young entrepreneurs can start small business and therefore get into jobs in that way. There are also rumours that the Ministry of Education and Training will be cutting all of the student grant programs for the summer. This is a significant issue for youth in Ontario and I'd like a straight answer.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I would like to tell the House about a meeting of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association that I attended last fall. At that meeting, there were many of the tourist outfitters, obviously, present, and they were very pleased to know what we were doing to help small businesses --

Mr Colle: Youth. Youth.

Hon Mr Saunderson: -- because one of the things that affects the tourist outfitters is that during the summertime --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. Order, the member for Brampton South.

Hon Mr Saunderson: -- they hire many students, and I'm very happy to report that they were very pleased to know we have frozen the minimum wage. That is a very big impetus for them to hire more students in the summertime.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Happy to know that? I'm delighted to know that, of course.

Hon Mr Saunderson: The opposition benches should know. They should know this, that our minimum wage is the highest of any province in Canada. We are going to freeze the minimum wage until we are the lowest. That is going to create jobs --

Mr Colle: What about youth jobs?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Let's get it down to --

Hon Mr Saunderson: -- and that member over there should realize this, that your party and the other government party over the past 10 years raised that wage so high that it hurt the students trying to get jobs in the summer. You will be very pleased to know that this summer there will be many more students hired by the northern Ontario tourist outfitters, and I'm sure that when you look back next fall and see that the jobs have improved for the young people during the summer, you will reflect back to this question today and be somewhat embarrassed by the success --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I also say that when I was speaking to these tourist outfitters --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The question has been answered. Order, order.

ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would say the answer to that last question was the largest abuse on the part of a minister trying to kill time, not to answer a question.

None the less, my question's to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I have your document from the --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: I'll try it again. The opposition members --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Who's your question to?

Mr Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I have your document with me from the Ontario Housing Corp that points out that you, as minister, have directed that over the next two years you're going to be cutting from the capital budget of improvements for Ontario Housing by 40%. That means to say simply that the 80,000 units that are presently within Ontario Housing are not going to have the money they need in order to keep them in good repair and it will put those particular units in jeopardy.

What I want to ask you is simply this: Are you intending on transporting your managerial style from the TTC, where you allowed that particular commission to fall into disrepair and get into the situation it is now; that you're going to bring forward that particular management style --

The Speaker: Would the member put his question, please.

Mr Bisson: I want to quote specifically from a quote here from the Toronto Sun. "When asked about a scathingly critical report authored by the Washington, DC, expert...that pointed out a lack of preventive maintenance programs and poor communication between TTC departments, Leach said that in his opinion, he disagrees." You disagree that cutting those budgets by 40% won't put Ontario Housing out of repair --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Minister?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the question. Could you repeat the question?

The Speaker: The time for oral question period has expired.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am very concerned about what just transpired. I think that you yourself have attempted to be fair. We saw very clearly that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade attempted to run out the clock to give an answer that had no content.

Interjections.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I'll wait until there is some order.

The Speaker: Order.

Ms Lankin: He attempted to run out the clock, and it was done as a joke. We could see him looking at the clock, and his caucus was cheering him on. All of that is fine, because there was no damage done because the Speaker sought a remedy for that by providing the opportunity for the member from our caucus to ask a question. But with the hooting and the hollering that was taking place in this place, the minister the question was directed to says he's unable to hear it and then you end oral question period.

Mr Speaker, I think there is a requirement for the minister, who's walking out at this point in time, who just didn't want to answer the question -- he had his earpiece out; he could hear the question --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's not my responsibility whether somebody listens to a question or whether they don't. It's not my responsibility whether they answer the question or they don't.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Whether or not the minister chose to answer the question is not the issue. He said he could not hear it. The member for Cochrane South should be allowed to ask the question again so the minister can hear it and thus he can respond. It is not acceptable that he be called to sit down and that we go on to routine proceedings. He should be allowed to put the question again.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): If it pleases the House, I would seek unanimous consent to have the member briefly put his question so the minister can respond.

The Speaker: Briefly.

Mr Bisson: You're cutting by 40% the moneys needed to keep the Ontario Housing stock in order. The question is simply this: Do you plan on bringing those management styles you had at the TTC back to the Ministry of Housing under the OHC, where they won't have the money to keep their stock in good repair?

Hon Mr Leach: I can commit to this House that I will bring my excellent management style to this House.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Point of order: I think it has been customary in this House that --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Do you have a point of order here?

Mr Phillips: Yes -- that when a policy on minimum wage is announced, it's announced as a ministerial statement. Today we heard that the government plans to freeze the minimum wage until it is the lowest in Canada. I believe that should have been a ministerial statement, not a response to a question, and I wonder if you might rule on that, Mr Speaker.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to correct myself. What I had meant to say, and I stand corrected, was that we were wanting to have the minimum wage on a par with the adjoining jurisdictions.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I move that Mr Bartolucci and Mr Sergio exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): You've all heard the motion. Do you agree? Agreed.

PETITIONS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that says:

"Whereas the Harris government plans to sell public housing;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to privatize public housing and allow for public hearings."

I affix my signature to hundreds of people who share those same sentiments.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by approximately 25 residents of my constituency. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending'" -- and it goes on further that he promised to create 725,000 new jobs -- "and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to create significant jobs in the province; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that `aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

I affix my name to it.

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"The government of Ontario is planning to implement tax cuts that will benefit well-off people while at the same time they have cut income to the poor, and 46% of Ontario families make less than $35,000 a year but will get only 7.3% of the benefits of the proposed tax cuts (or about $462 per year). Families with total incomes of over $95,000 a year make up only 9.2% of all Ontario families, but they will get 32.7% of the benefits. In these tough times it is unconscionable that the poor will go hungry while the wealthy are given more.

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

I affix my signature to this as well.

SECURITY OF LEGISLATIVE PRECINCT

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Ontario belongs to the people of this province; and

"Whereas the people of this province are extremely concerned about the excessive force used by police to injure more than five people at this Legislature on Monday, March 18, 1996; and

"Whereas any internal investigation by