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

September 10, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L227a - Wed 10 Sep 1997 / Mer 10 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

CANCER

BOATING SAFETY

FERRY SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

KUNTZ ELECTROPLATING

FESTITALIA

PAY EQUITY

CHRIS HADFIELD

VISITOR

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING / PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE MARIAGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PAY EQUITY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PUBLIC HEALTH

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

LABOUR DISPUTE

WATER SUPPLY

GASOLINE PRICES

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENCE LIBRARY

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREAS

TVONTARIO

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

CHILD CARE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

FERRY SERVICE

EDUCATION FINANCING

COURT DECISION

TVONTARIO

PAY EQUITY

EDUCATION REFORM

JUGEMENT DE LA COUR D'APPEL

CHILD CARE

LABOUR LEGISLATION

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES FINANCIERS DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I hold in my hands yet another example of this government's vile attempts at justifying its agenda for education. The tabloid entitled Putting Students First is really only missing the sensational paparazzi pictures of the minister running away from classrooms, running away from students and running away from teachers to make this truly a quality imitation of a real piece of journalistic expertise.

Mike Harris's very expensive tabloid speaks volumes about what's not in it. I can't find anywhere where it says that Mike Harris cut funding for junior kindergarten. I can't find anywhere where it says Mike Harris slashed funding to adult education. I can't find anywhere in the journal where it says that Mike Harris reduced funding for literacy programs and for colleges and universities.

The minister claims that he puts students first, but he won't protect class sizes. He pays lip-service to it, but he won't protect class sizes. When I asked him to call my bill, which protects class sizes, he says it's simplistic.

Minister, I say your plan is non-existent. I would rather have a simplistic plan that works rather than one that isn't in existence. What is truly telling about this propaganda is that Mike Harris is trying to justify removing another billion dollars out of education on the backs of the students of this province.

I'll tell you right now, there should be three Rs: reject, refuse and return to the minister.

CANCER

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): All Ontarians should be concerned about a report published recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology which warns that those Ontarians with cancer who live in families where the average annual family income is less than $20,000 are much less likely to survive the full range of cancers than those whose income is $40,000 per year. In fact, the higher the family income the more likely the patient is to survive.

"In poorer communities," the study says, "there is both an excess of cancer deaths and an excess of deaths from other causes," among lower-income groups. The study tracked 357,530 cases of cancer diagnosed in Ontario between 1982 and 1991.

This finding must give us pause because it flies in the face of our generally held belief that medicare has smoothed out the differences of mortality rates from diseases such as cancer based on income levels. Whatever the reasons for this disparity -- and there are many suggestions about those possible reasons -- the study is a heads-up call for all of us who value a universally accessible health care system. We must be sure this kind of disparity does not perpetuate itself or even increase as health care restructuring takes place across this province.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Today I wish to notify the members of this Legislature that yesterday I tabled a private member's resolution, ballot 96, entitled Boating Safety.

The members in this House already know why we need boater safety certification in this province. Since 16.5% of Ontario is water, every member here with a lake or river in their riding has a boating or personal watercraft horror story to tell.

The public is very concerned over the increasing number of high-speed boats and personal watercrafts currently being operated by untrained operators and children. Many operators do not understand the marine rules of the road and mistakes can sometimes be fatal. It is the general lack of knowledge and awareness of water safety precautions that leads to complaints related to boating operations.

I've worked since 1988 to bring boating safety legislation into Ontario. By safe boating I am not advocating licensing for operators. What I have been pushing for and aiming and still pushing for is boater safety certification.

The resolution I tabled yesterday is asking this Legislature to push the federal government to amend the Canada Shipping Act,

part II, requirements for pleasure craft. These changes would require persons operating a motor boat or personal watercraft propelled by an engine of more than 10 horsepower on Ontario waterways to have a boater safety certificate.

I look forward to presenting my resolution in full tomorrow at 11 am.

FERRY SERVICES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Later today I will be presenting in the House a petition of great importance to a great many people in my riding. It's signed by 730 people, the vast majority permanent residents of the island communities, and asks the province to substantially fund the construction of a bridge between the islands and the mainland.

This government has backed the island communities into a corner. Mike Harris has created an untenable position by saying he will end all provincial subsidies and force them to take on the responsibility for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the ferries. They have asked islands with a combined tax base of $800,000 to shoulder a $4 to $5 million cost. Property taxes would have to increase 338%, which is total insanity.

Islanders are terrified that the ferry costs, on top of the added downloading responsibilities for policing that they don't get and ambulance service, could very well bury them under a burden of debt and kill the opportunities for the communities to prosper.

The people affected are not tourists. These are permanent residents, some of whom have families that have lived on these islands for over 200 years. Have a look at the August edition of Farm and Country if you want a snapshot of how the farmers on Wolfe Island are affected. Already the prospect of ferry downloading has caused property values to drop by a third.

Mike Harris, I ask you once again, reconsider your position to download these enormous financial responsibilities. The islands are willing to pay their fair share, but with a small tax base and few financial resources, they cannot possibly handle these tremendous costs on their own. You are killing Ontario communities that have been in existence for over 200 years.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Yet again this government is demonstrating that they are moving so fast they're forgetting to pay attention to the finer details of how to implement their policies.

We know that this government is an ideological right-wing government which believes it is going to offload a number of responsibilities on to municipalities in an attempt to balance its books. But what's the cost of doing that, other than the cost to local property taxpayers who are going to have to foot the bill? It means in a lot of cases in communities across this province a number of services that used to be paid for by the province will no longer be able to be absorbed by the municipal councils across the province. What is the cost of that?

Let's just take a look at the issue of what it means to the youth of this province. In their zeal to deal with this issue in a way that's really not thought through, they are going to be putting in jeopardy and, I would argue, eliminating entirely programs that deal with youth when it comes to substance abuse, suicide prevention and teen counselling when it comes to the health councils of the province.

This government has to learn that whatever it does in its ideological drive to change the face of Ontario, it must take the time to make sure those changes work and to make sure they're done in a methodical way so that they don't end up making the kinds of mistakes that they're making now, putting our system into failure and, I would say, adding one other crisis to the province.

KUNTZ ELECTROPLATING

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I've often stated in this House that the number one priority of this government is and must continue to be to establish a positive business environment in the province of Ontario, an environment which encourages the private sector to flourish and to expand, resulting in the creation of jobs.

There is a direct parallel between the number of new jobs created in the private sector and a reduction in the number of people on welfare, an increase in the number of people who pay income taxes, an increase in the number of people who are able to support their families and an increase in the number of people who gain a greater sense of dignity.

The true fighters against poverty in this province are those private sector employers who are creating new jobs in the province. I stand today to recognize an outstanding corporate citizen in the Kitchener area, Kuntz Electroplating, a family-owned and -operated company.

In the past three years this family business has created 350 new jobs, doubling its staff to 700 employees. It is a company which was recently honoured by its peers for its nickel recycling efforts, having formalized their recycling department several years ago and now recycling more than 70% of the solid waste produced at the plant.

In August Kuntz Electroplating's efforts were honoured by the metal finishing pollution prevention project, a government and industry task force made up of federal and provincial environment ministries and top industry experts.

I know I speak on behalf of the assembly when I say to the Kuntz family, I send you our best wishes for your continued success.

FESTITALIA

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to advise the House that last week in Hamilton we had the opening ceremonies of the 22nd annual Festitalia activities. This is a month-long festival that has been a tradition in the city of Hamilton and it will continue to be for many years to come.

The chair, Margherita Lawlor, and her committee have once again put together a great month of festivities. This includes a performance of Don Giovanni by Opera Hamilton, a Vino e Amore night, which, in effect, is the biggest Italian wedding in North America, at the Convention Centre, and one of the highlights, of course, is the regional dinners. This is where clubs from the various regions of Italy put on a dinner traditional to that region and it is well attended.

These clubs include Pettorano Sul Gizio, the Donnici Club, the Venetian Club, Famee Furlane, Santa Crocce di Magliano, the Abrussese Club, the Alpini Club, the Pugliese Club and the Sons of Italy. These are great evenings of great dinner enjoyment for all.

There is a soccer tournament and a film night. It's a month of activities that allow the whole city, the region and many people across North America to share in the Italian culture and the Italian way of life, to enjoy the food, the wine and the goodwill and cheers that are offered up by many.

The board of directors, the Italian community, the city of Hamilton and the region of Hamilton-Wentworth look forward to this every year as a great font of festivities. I want to congratulate the board, the chair and all of the member clubs for their great work in making Festitalia the greatest Italian festival in Hamilton.

[Remarks in Italian]

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Dovercourt.

Point of order?

Interjection.

The Speaker: If you have a point of order, you have to wait for your mike to come on and then you make your point of order so I can hear it.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): I was questioning whether or not you can hear in that left ear. That was all. I know you can hear in the right ear; I was wondering whether you could hear in the left ear, sir.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, that wasn't funny. I assume it was meant for humour. It wasn't funny. That's certainly not a point of order, and I think you should be cautious in the future.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to rise today to call upon the government to respect the decision that was recently handed down by Ontario Justice Dennis O'Leary regarding the proxy pay equity issue.

This is a decision that reinstates the right of some 100,000 women across the province to have the right that was given to them in law in 1993 by a government I was proud to be a member of that ensured that the lowest-paid women in the province also saw the benefits of pay equity, something that did not exist up until that point and something which Mike Harris and his government wanted and chose to take out, chose to remove, as they did last year, and which now the courts have said is wrong.

Those women, just like all of the other women who have benefited in the past from pay equity, also need to see that their rights as women are defended and respected, and given particularly that they are among the lowest-paid workers in the province, that they continue to be at the forefront of those people who receive this basic protection.

I was proud back in 1993, as the Chair of Management Board, to have the responsibility within our government for coordinating the efforts that led to the proxy pay equity legislation being introduced by our then Minister of Labour.

Again, I urge the government to respect the court decision and to take heed of the words that were given by the justice in recognizing that this is a basic right these women need to continue to have.

CHRIS HADFIELD

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): This past weekend I attended a major event that reminded me why I'm so proud to live in my community. Chris Hadfield visited Sarnia, where his parents live and where he went to school. A crowd of thousands came out to greet Chris Hadfield, the Sarnia-born astronaut who is the first Canadian to walk in space. Our local airport was renamed in his honour and is now known as the Sarnia Chris Hadfield Airport.

Our special guest was most gracious in sharing his experiences with the excited crowd. As he told us how he dreamed of being an astronaut when he was just a small boy in Sarnia, we were all reminded that our own dreams for the future can come true if we believe enough to put in the effort.

Sarnia has the right ingredients to be many things to all people: the Hadfield airport, a tourist destination, an efficient transportation corridor, a base for new investment and a place of opportunity.

Chris Hadfield brought home to us an important reminder: If we have the courage to follow our dreams, we will achieve wonderful things.

I would like to thank Joan Link, the chair of the Hadfield event. Joan and I ran in the last provincial election. She's a good friend of mine and she is also a friend of the honourable Lyn McLeod. She did a fantastic job. Thank you, Joan, for a job well done.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to take this opportunity to introduce in the west gallery Jack Riddell, the ex-member for Huron-Middlesex. Welcome.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 43rd report of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 105(g)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING / PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: In compliance with the new rules of the Legislature, forced on this Legislature by the government, I gave you notice of a point of privilege that I would be raising this afternoon, as I am now required to do. I note that at the time it said:

"In compliance with the changes recently made to the standing orders for the Legislative Assembly, I wish to bring the following matter to your attention: The Minister of Education, the Honourable John Snobelen, has announced that the Ontario government intends to proceed with an advertising campaign which will cost the taxpayers of the province approximately $1 million."

Upon reviewing the information that the government is communicating with the public -- it's found in this particular document and on this tape being provided to television stations across the province -- I would put forth that it constitutes an abuse of public funds for the purpose of partisan gain. The information does not constitute an important public announcement, but instead puts forth a self-serving political message clearly designed to influence public opinion.

I also wish to raise the question of fairness in regard to this matter. While there would be no objection to this advertising campaign if the Conservative Party were funding its costs or if it were to come out of the funds of the Conservative caucus, this is not the case. The government is spending public funds in order to communicate what I consider to be a blatantly political message, these funds and resources to which the opposition has no access.

Upon appropriate consideration of your jurisdiction and a review of the advertising material, I would ask you to consider whether this constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege. I would put to you that it does, as the advertising campaigns relate to matters currently before the House as well as the legislation the government has announced it intends to introduce.

Mr Speaker, the reason I thought it would be appropriate to raise this is that you will recall that in a previous ruling you made on January 22 this year, you said the following:

"I say in all candour that a reader of that document" -- this was a document put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- "could be left with an incorrect impression about how parliamentary democracy works in Ontario, an impression that undermines respect for our parliamentary institutions."

Further, you said:

"On a separate but related matter, the member for St Catharines expressed concerns on Tuesday of last week about the unequal access to advertising resources as between the government and the opposition. He asked whether the Speaker had any jurisdiction to restrict the government from disseminating allegedly self-serving, partisan advertising.

"At this point in my ruling, I want to express some personal concerns about the propriety of public funds being used to advocate, through advertising, a particular position on a matter that is before the House. Let me be clear: I am not speaking here about politically paid-for advertising but rather about funds that are contributed to by every Ontarian, regardless of his or her political view. Personally, I would find it offensive if taxpayer dollars were being used to convey a political or partisan message.

There is nothing wrong with members debating an issue and influencing public opinion; in fact, it is part of our parliamentary tradition to do so. But I feel that it's wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion through advertising that is paid for with public funds."

That, in a capsule, is my objection in my point of privilege to what is going on with the government, that once again it is embarking upon a public relations campaign using tax dollars, using resources which are available only to the government and not to all members of the House. If the Minister of Education wanted the Conservative Party to pay for this, I would not be able to stand in this House and object. One could even make a case for the Conservative caucus bureau putting forth information of this kind without objection. But it is clearly unfair in our parliamentary democracy for this to happen.

I submit as well that many of the matters referred to in the document and in the tape are matters that have not been completely disposed of in this House.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): On this point of privilege, I will say that the newsletter that is going out to the people of Ontario is simply an attempt by the government to convey very important information to the people of Ontario. The people have every right to know some of the basic facts that pertain to an important service such as education in the province; indeed, most people demand to know this kind of information.

The ministry has put together a very simple, black-and-white piece of information which doesn't presuppose anything, which simply conveys information, information that the people of Ontario have every right to be aware of. The cost of 12 cents for each copy is minimal. If some of the members opposite are saying that the people of Ontario have no right to this sort of information, I think the remainder in this House would take issue with that approach.

Mr Speaker, I also bring your attention to a publication from the previous government --

Interjections.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Look who's talking, the guys who ran the debt up to $100 billion. Look who's talking. You doubled spending and tripled the debt.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I would ask the opposition to come to order, and the Minister of Finance as well, please. Thank you.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): -- in two weeks at Ontario Hydro. It looks good on you.

Hon Mr Eves: Look who spent that money at Ontario Hydro.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, order. Minister of Finance, order.

Hon David Johnson: I bring your attention to a publication from the previous government, the NDP government, which did exactly the same thing, with a couple of differences. One is that the publication from the former government, the NDP government, contained both a photo and a message from the minister. This publication today, from this government, contains no message, no photo of the minister. The publication from the NDP is obviously more expensive in that there are more colours involved. The message from this government: straight, factual information, no political information, no message from the minister in a political context, and it's in black and white.

It's interesting that the Liberals have raised this issue, because the Liberals in their last year, 1990-91, spent over $22 million in ministry advertising, over $22 million. This government, through the ministries, spent less than half of that amount in terms of advertising. It's still necessary to communicate to the people of Ontario, but we have done it at less than half the cost of the Liberal government in what they spent to advertise in 1990-91.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: Obviously, it's a bit silly for the government to claim that because the minister's visage is not part of this, it is not propaganda.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to ask the House to come to order. These are points of order. They are directed at the Chair so I can hear them in order to make an informed decision. I ask those behind the Speaker and those on the other side of the chamber to please come to order. I ask the member to address his remarks through me.

Mr Wildman: Speaker, I hope you will consider the document and will look at page 6 in particular, where it says, "Focusing Dollars on the Classroom," and goes on to say that the government has a new approach, that there will be the same level of funding for each student enrolled in their schools across Ontario, but does not deal with what that level will be. If the government House leader says there wasn't a message -- the main issue that concerns parents and people interested in education across the province today is missing from this document.

Yet the government House leader claims we shouldn't be concerned about it because it's not very costly, when in fact it costs 12 cents a copy, which for 4.2 million households works out to about half a million dollars. At the same time, the government is also running a television ad. According to the minister's own information given out yesterday, they have already spent $485,000 on that media buy. So in total we're talking about $1 million at a time when this government says they don't have money for education in the classroom and they're taking $1 billion out of education.

The Speaker: I think we've reached the stage of debate. We're not into points of order.

Member for Cochrane South, you're getting up on a point of order. I ask you to stick to the point of order.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Je vais être très court. Je pense qu'il y a deux points importants ici. Le premier point, c'est que le gouvernement essaie de nous faire croire que ce document n'est pas un document politique. Moi, j'aimerais dire que c'est bien un document politique. Ce qu'ils essaient de faire essentiellement avec ce document, c'est deux choses.

Premièrement, ils essaient de convaincre le public qu'il y a une crise dans le système d'éducation de l'Ontario. C'est quelque chose, on sait, que le ministre de l'Éducation lui-même a essayé de nous faire croire à beaucoup de reprises depuis que son gouvernement a été élu.

Deuxièmement, ils essaient de rassurer le public que leur agenda idéologique ne va pas diminuer la qualité de l'éducation, encore un message politique.

Je pense que l'autre affaire, en conséquence, c'est que le gouvernement conservateur a ôté tous les droits à tous les députés de l'opposition pour être capables de communiquer avec leurs citoyens et la population ontarienne en coupant tous les budgets des députés, mais eux, ça pense fin utiliser un million de dollars de l'argent public, du budget ministériel, pour faire quoi, essentiellement ? Communiquer un message politique.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a different point of order.

The Speaker: Can I stick with this one?

Mr Bartolucci: Absolutely.

The Speaker: Member for Fort William.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I'll be brief. I would think, as you examine this point of privilege raised by my colleague, that you might want to use a standard of judgement as to whether it's an appropriate expenditure for a Ministry of Education, in the name of having to inform the public of something that is a public service, as to whether or not there is indeed information.

If you look closely at it, I think you will find there is no information contained in this particular flyer, let alone in the very brief television ad, that is not being conveyed much more fully and more readily to parents at the local school level. You'll find that this is pure political advertising and nothing else.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): And not the truth either.

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau, you have to withdraw that statement. That's out of order.

Mr Guzzo: My comment was that the propaganda --

Interjections.

The Speaker: With the greatest respect, I want to hear it because maybe I misheard you, but I don't think I did. Go ahead.

Mr Guzzo: I believe you did, and if you'll allow me, my statement was that the propaganda being handed out at the school level was not the truth.

The Speaker: I apologize. I thought you said what the member was saying.

Mr Guzzo: I would never say that of a member.

The Speaker: Okay.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I want to rule on this point of order first.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Point of privilege.

The Speaker: Point of privilege, you're right, sorry. On this point of privilege.

With the new rules, the member for St Catharines did give me the point of privilege previously -- this morning, as a matter of fact -- and allowed me the opportunity to review it before coming here today. I took the opportunity of reviewing the brochure or small newspaper or whatever it is that was handed out by the Ministry of Education.

The fact is, it's quite simple: If it's a point of privilege, it's got to be a point of privilege. You have to outline contempt. You have to show where it is that your privileges are being usurped, in essence.

Your argument being that it isn't balanced and reasonable or it isn't fair and the government has advantages that the opposition doesn't have when it comes to reporting to the people of the province of Ontario: Whether or not that's true is academic. I, as Speaker, don't have any power to determine whether or not something is balanced or reasonable or information-based or not.

I think I was fairly clear when I ruled on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I find that if anyone is using government money to purport to be providing information that is clearly partisan in nature, I find it reprehensible -- that is just my personal opinion -- whether it's this government or previous administrations. I will say categorically, having sat in this place on both sides of the House, that I think we were all -- all the administrations -- guilty of this at one time or another.

It's not going to be up to me to make that decision or call, simply because I don't have that power, nor should I have that power. It's going to have to be up to the people of the province of Ontario to make that decision and they're going to have to determine what they consider to be acceptable and not acceptable. You can't look to the Speaker to make those decisions. I can't, nor do I want to.

The only thing I can look to is whether or not there is contempt. I reviewed the Ministry of Education's brochure. There was no contempt I could find. There was nothing out of order about it, there was nothing that was rendering this place secondary by nature, so I would rule that your point of privilege is not that.

Mr Bartolucci: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm seeking unanimous consent for second reading of Bill 156, which is

An Act to amend certain statutes with respect to The Regional Municipality of Sudbury, to allow for election of the chair by the people of the regional municipality of Sudbury.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

Introduction of bills.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Can I ask you, does Hansard record the fact that the government members voted against it or is it simply recorded as --

The Speaker: No, I just seek unanimous consent. If there's a no, there's a no. They don't record who the noes are.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we missed item two, reports by committees.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 102,

An Act to improve community safety by amending the Change of Name Act, the Ministry of Correctional Services Act and the Police Services Act / Projet de loi 102, Loi visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité en modifiant la

Loi sur le changement de nom, la

Loi sur le ministère des Services correctionnels et la

Loi sur les services policiers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? No.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

I declare the motion carried.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE MARIAGE

Mr Bob Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Marriage Act to provide incentives for pre-marriage education / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le mariage et prévoyant des mesures d'encouragement à la préparation au mariage.

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

Mr Wood, a short explanation?

Mr Bob Wood (London South): This bill provides for a waiting period of 45 days for a marriage licence. This period will be reduced to five days for couples who take a marriage education course.

The bill is based on a growing body of social science research in this field. It is intended to help couples approaching marriage to build relationship skills vital to strong and enduring marriages. It is my hope that this bill will make a significant contribution in reducing the human and social costs of failed marriages and help to strengthen Ontario's families.

Interjections.

Mr Bob Wood: We hear that some find this to be a light matter, Mr Speaker, but I don't. I think it's quite serious.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. For the last three days, teachers have been in meetings with representatives of your government. They were there at your invitation. They came despite the tremendously provocative nature of the proposals that you had made to them. They came because they felt they owed it to their members and to students to hear what you had to say. Last night at 9:30 pm your representatives walked out. Why did your representatives walk away from the table, and why are you so determined to force a confrontation with Ontario teachers?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): My information is that the representatives from the Ministry of Education, who were engaged in conversations with people who represented the unions for teachers in Ontario and the boards of education in Ontario -- that set of consultations had taken three days -- did not walk away from the table. If the member for Fort William has any information that they did cut off these talks or end these talks in some way early, if she has any information that would indicate that whatsoever, please send it over, because that is not what has been represented to me as what happened.

I believe there was a very fulsome conversation about issues that are important to education with teachers and with board representatives and I look forward to reviewing all of those talks and all of those consultations over the next few days, because I think that's important for the bill that we will be bringing to this House.

Once again, in direct answer, my information is that the officials from the ministry did not break off these talks. If the member opposite who has made that accusation today in this chamber has any information that would indicate that, please send it over.

Mrs McLeod: The minister is either misinformed or he is deliberately ignorant of what happened last night. Minister, you want the facts. The facts are that when one side has a proposal on the table and the other side walks away, the side that walks away has broken off the negotiations. Last night it was your representatives.

The teachers were at that table in good faith. They knew your goal; you had made it very clear. They knew your goal was to take more than $1 billion out of education. They knew you were more concerned with getting to the lowest possible cost than with meeting the needs of students. They were told you wanted more than the $1.3 billion I thought you were looking for; they were told you wanted $1 billion more on top of the $500 million you have already taken out of education.

They didn't agree with your goals, but they were willing to try and find ways to meet your cost targets without hurting students. They were prepared to use pension funds to meet your savings target, if that was the only way to avoid disruption in the classroom. Why would you walk away from negotiations with teachers who were trying to find ways to save money without --

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Fort William, I asked you in my response to your first question to provide any substantiation of the allegation you've made here. You haven't offered any substantiation of that. I suppose you think that your role here is to stand up and make whatever allegations you'd like to make, without substantiation, day in, day out, even if that comes at the cost of the education of children in the province. That's not something I can support.

I can tell you this: You were right in this one sense: that there was good faith shown by everyone who attended those meetings, everyone who had a discussion about our goal, which is their goal, and that is to have the students of Ontario outperform students in every other province in Canada and to do that as quickly as we possibly can. That's our goal; that's what we were there talking about. I'm glad we had the opportunity to do that with teachers and with boards.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, you went to those same teachers less than a month ago and you said, "Let's drop the rhetoric and let's deal with students' needs," and they wanted to believe that you meant that you were going to drop the rhetoric and deal with students' needs. They went to that table for three days; they didn't like your intention, your clearly non-negotiable goal of taking another $1 billion out of education, but they wanted to do everything they could to avoid a confrontation and to protect the students in the classroom.

Whatever you say, it is so clear that you are determined to have a confrontation with teachers. You are determined to cut $1.5 billion from education. You have made that a non-negotiable goal. You are determined to take your savings on the backs of teachers. You've set out impossible conditions for bargaining. It is students who are going to pay the greatest price for your determination to find dollars to pay for Mike Harris's tax cut and you won't want any solutions because you want to do permanent destruction to classrooms in this province.

Minister, before it is too late, will you drop your non-negotiable hard line? Will you set aside your impossible conditions? Will you work with teachers so that students' needs can be protected in this province?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to confirm that I did go down to Niagara-on-the-Lake a few weeks ago. I did ask the heads of the teachers' unions in the province to drop the rhetoric, to chill things out, to come in and meet with us and talk about how we improve the system together. In fact, that's what precipitated the meetings that we have just had with the teachers and the boards, to talk about how to do that. I intend to take those deliberations seriously, I intend to review what they had to say seriously, because I think it's important.

You speak of empty and meaningless rhetoric. The only empty and meaningless rhetoric we've heard over the course of the last week on education is from the member for Fort William. I think it's a sad display for an elected representative.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. A couple of days ago I had the opportunity to make a home visit together with a children's aid society worker. I visited a young mother who was raising three children on her own. She lives in an apartment for which she pays $800 a month. She had been receiving $1,500 welfare monthly. Under your changes, after your cuts, she's receiving about $1,100 a month.

She struggles valiantly against cockroaches, mice and head lice. She tells me that she has no phone because she can't afford it. It was the eighth day of the month on which I visited her, so I said, "Do you mind if I look inside the kitchen cupboards and inside the fridge?" I can tell you, if you and I had looked inside those cupboards and that fridge together, we would both say: "There's no food in the house. You've got to go shopping." This was the eighth day of the month.

Do you understand, Minister, what you're doing to young mothers who are making valiant efforts to raise their kids on welfare in Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Many parents, whether they're on social assistance, whether they're in a low-income job, face many challenges in trying to raise their kids. One of the reasons we think it's so important to help those parents get jobs, get into the workforce, one of the reasons why we think it's so important to have those jobs there for them is so they can do that, because we know that's what they want to do and we know that they and their kids are better off if they have those jobs.

I would agree with the honourable member that we know more needs to be done, because we know where those parents want to be. The experts will tell you where those kids are better off: if their parents or parent is in the workforce. That is what has been driving many of our reforms, because I would agree with the honourable member that this mother does indeed need additional help.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you care for these mothers and these children so much that you cut $400 worth of welfare from them. That is a tremendous display of love and affection for them.

This mother, by the way, has got lots of initiative. While she has been on welfare she has completed her grade 12, her OAC and her first year of university. But now she can't. This year, for the first time, she can't continue her post-secondary studies because you've changed the OSAP system. This year she would have to borrow the equivalent of $30,000 in order to continue her education because as a welfare recipient, if she wants to go to school, she's going to have to get off welfare. She'll have to borrow for her accommodation, her day care and her tuition fees and whatever else she might need.

She is absolutely terrified of putting her family into debt to the tune of 30 grand a year to meet those expenses, so she's going to be pursuing her studies one credit at a time.

Do you understand that what you're doing is prolonging the length of time on which this family is about to live in poverty? Do you understand that, Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The goal I think, and I think you share this, if I may be so presumptuous as to say this -- we don't want kids on welfare. We want to get them off social assistance. We want to help those parents who need the help who have high-risk kids and high-risk families. As the Minister of Education has said previously, one of the things we've been doing with universities and colleges is to make sure there are more resources there for those individuals on low income who need the help to get that education. That's why one of the things that is part of our employment programs is assistance for education needs, because we recognize that training is extremely important.

That is very much part of the agenda that this government is trying to put forward. It's one of the reasons why we're working with Ottawa on the national child benefit, so that additional moneys can be available for us to help kids in high-risk families, because I agree that we need to do more. That's why we have done all the additional funding, all the changes we have made to accomplish that.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you will know that I have put together a task force which is travelling to a number of Ontario communities and we are looking for ways to meet some of the challenges that our children are facing day in and day out in this great province of ours.

One of the things that we are fast learning is it's not any one particular item of the Harris agenda that's hurting kids, it's the whole agenda. It's things like the gutting of rent control, hiking of tuition, changes to OSAP, cuts to children's aid.

Do you know what this mother also told me? She relies heavily on the fact that she can go to her community centre, she can get free swimming for the kids, she can get free access to the library. She is terrified that because of downloading she's going to have to start paying for those kinds of things, because she can't. It's those kinds of opportunities that keep her kids plugged into mainstream Ontario.

When are you going to start to realize that what you are doing, not only on your own as a minister but the entire Harris agenda, is causing serious damage to Ontario children?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to remind the honourable member that he is also hearing in these hearings that he is having across the province that there is no government that can go and brag about what it is doing or has done for children. What he is hearing are many, many long-standing problems in child welfare and in many other programs that are out there.

What we have been very clear about is that we want to take the resources that we have, the increased resources that we are putting into high-risk and prevention, the increased resources that we're putting into child welfare, the increased resources that we're putting into child care -- the list could go on because we know that children's services in this province need a lot of change because they haven't been meeting the needs of those kids out there who trust us to meet those needs.

I would challenge the honourable member to disagree with one of the reforms that we have going on in child welfare. We've consulted the experts, we're doing what they say needs to be done to protect those kids. That's what they're telling him in his task force, and if he disagrees with them, I challenge him to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, third party, member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In response to the minister, we might all challenge the fact that --

The Speaker: No, your question is to, member for Algoma?

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): My question is on education to the Minister of Education and Training, and I might challenge the fact that sole-support parents now cannot get welfare. They must depend on OSAP and increase their debt load.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Education and Training about a very serious situation that faces this province today, students and parents, people interested in education across Ontario: the possibility of a serious disruption in education. I don't want to be accused of dealing with hollow rhetoric, so I'll ask the minister a specific factual question.

Can the minister confirm that in the negotiations his representatives said that it was non-negotiable, that the government would take an additional $1 billion out of education, that the government wished to take that out by changing and limiting teacher preparation time and that would mean that the students of Ontario would have a total of 6,000 fewer teachers in the province?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I was not at the negotiations, to be clear to the member for Algoma, the discussions. I can tell you that the representatives from my office would convey to the people who were in those meetings what this government's non-negotiable position is, and the non-negotiable position of this government is that we will accept nothing less than a better education system for the young people of Ontario. By that, we mean better performance on their test results in both pan-Canadian and international tests.

We've made several moves to help to do that with the new curriculum, with our testing programs. That's what we stand for. That's what we're there for. We've also said very clearly that we intend to do that at a cost that represents value for the taxpayers of Ontario.

We are certainly willing to listen to any positions of anyone in education. We're willing to listen to the expert panels we've commissioned to tell us how much a high-quality education should cost. We're willing to listen to all of those people because we want to have an education system in Ontario that we can all be proud of.

Mr Wildman: I might be tempted to accuse the minister of hollow rhetoric. We could have found out what he just said in his pamphlet. He didn't answer my question, however. My question was specifically on matters that were raised in the negotiations.

I'll ask a further question then. Can the minister confirm that in the negotiations, the teacher federation representatives, taking the government's position that it was non-negotiable that they wanted to take the money out, offered to make the same amount of savings or similar amounts of savings by taking money out of the teachers' pension plan rather than out of the education of our kids? Can the minister confirm that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know that the conversations were wide-ranging. I know they dealt with a lot of issues inside of education. I do know that there was a discussion that involved pensions. I haven't read the full reports from the discussions, but I understand they involved the pension fund that is, as you know, a partnership between the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the government of Ontario.

Again, I'd like to emphasize to the member for Algoma that we are willing to listen to any proposal made by teachers or boards that will help to improve both the value of and the quality of education for our young people. We think it's important and we clearly are not negotiable about the outcome, which has to be a better education for our young people, but we're willing to talk about all the steps along the way.

Mr Wildman: If what the minister says is an accurate description of his position and the position of his negotiators, how can he explain the fact that the teachers' representatives offered to make similar amounts of savings compared to what he has asked for, but that it would not mean cutting the number of teachers teaching students or cutting their preparation time in which they prepare to teach those students? If he's really interested in the quality of education, why wouldn't he accept a proposal to achieve savings that would save teachers' job and ensure that they have adequate time to prepare to teach our students in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me say to the member for Algoma, I have to tell you I'm very pleased that the teacher unions have embraced the need to provide education at a good value for the taxpayers of Ontario. I think it's important. They certainly have embraced that, and I thank them for their work and their participation.

Let me make this clear to the member for Algoma. I have not rejected any of the things that were proposed by people who represented boards or teachers in the province over the course of the last three days. I will be looking at all of those discussions, looking at the things that were proposed to us, and I want to get a chance to be briefed on that subject and also to reflect on it, because I believe that when you talk with people, you also have to listen. That's what we'll be doing over the course of the next few days: listening to proposals made by teachers and by boards to us over the last three days.

PAY EQUITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the Premier. Today we read in the Toronto Star that, "People across Ontario are cheering a court decision striking down one of the key moves Mike Harris has made against women." The judge found that your Bill 26 was unconstitutional when it tried to take money away from 100,000 of the lowest-paid women in the public sector in Ontario. As the Star says, "Justice O'Leary was also critical of the government's decision to act without reflection.... He said the government moved without regard to personal or social consequences and without consultation."

You aren't listening to what the people of Ontario are saying, but you should at least listen to the court. Will you announce today that you will accept this decision and live up to your obligation to make sure that women get fair pay for their jobs?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): With all due respect, I'd suggest you ask the question instead of relying on the Toronto Star and opinions stated therein for government positions. I've found it an excellent newspaper but never found it to be, necessarily, the most reliable indicator of what this government is thinking or Mike Harris is thinking, or any government, for that matter.

We remain very strongly committed to the principles of pay equity. We continue to fund at a higher level than did the New Democratic Party when they were in power. So not only do we believe in the principles, we're putting more taxpayer dollars into those principles that are there.

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

Hon Mr Harris: I can assure the member we're looking at the court ruling, and actually more as to what implications it might have with regard to technical aspects of other things the government is doing. But let me assure you of this: We will continue to honour and support our pay equity commitments and --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Ms Churley: Let me say to you, Premier, that the Star's words I read out today I believe reflect what the people of Ontario are saying and thinking about this matter. The people of Ontario believe in fairness, and what you're doing here is unfair.

Let me tell you, this judge's report is very clear. It doesn't leave you any wiggle room. It's very clear.

When we asked your Minister of Labour what she had to say to the 100,000 women affected by this court decision, she said the government was considering an appeal, but after all, there were new jobs being created in the economy last month. That just shows that she doesn't get it and you don't get it. We're talking about women who have jobs. They have important jobs in child care, nursing homes, women's shelters and community agencies. We need them to do these jobs and they want to keep these jobs.

What these women are telling you is that they expect to be paid fairly, as the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees. Why won't you listen to them and say today you will not appeal this decision?

Hon Mr Harris: We are listening to them. Regardless of whether we appeal or not, we're telling the agencies affected to honour the spirit of the judge's ruling and pay, as we are paying, just as we pay more than you paid with our employees.

Ms Churley: You keep saying that you are paying out more money than our party did. Let's be very clear here about what you're talking about: It's the 1% per year. You're paying money that has to be paid out. You haven't added any money to employment equity; in fact, you continue to take it away. You pay lip-service. You keep saying you support pay equity.

The Toronto Star has some more advice for you and I would suggest that you listen to it. It says Harris should "back off other punitive measures his government is proposing." It says the pay equity rollbacks in Bill 136, your attack on public sector workers, "clearly are unfair. By the standard of O'Leary's judgement, they may also be illegal."

The Star says the court ruling reflects public unease among the people of Ontario that your government "will forge ahead with policies that favour the privileged without regard to the consequences for everyone else." Isn't it time to start listening to the people and do what the voters of Ontario want? Be fair to the women of this province, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: The member seems to have trouble taking yes for an answer. Yes, we'll continue to listen to the people of Ontario, if that's your second question.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is for the Premier. I want to talk to you about an incident that took place in the Harris hospital system. This time it was at Peterborough Civic Hospital. You might recall that on February 5 Ed Whitehill died in the hallway of that hospital and your minister later tried to claim it was a situation made up by the staff of that hospital.

Today I want to talk to you about Mrs Shirley Littlefair. She will be 75 next month. She went to the emergency department in severe pain at 4 o'clock in the morning on August 4. She was finally discharged four days later. She spent her whole time in that emergency department. This 74-year-old woman spent her entire visit on a stretcher in the bright lights of the emergency room, in a draughty, noisy, public corridor. And guess what? She wasn't alone. There were always at least six other people there.

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

Mr Kennedy: Will you direct your minister to stop the cuts that have made these conditions necessary? Will you tell him to stop insulting health care workers and instead --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): When you look at all the statements that are out on the spending, we are substantially increasing funding for health care. I'm sure you don't want us to stop the increases. If that's your position, say so. If you have an individual case, if you'd like to send it over to us, I'd be glad to have the minister look into it for you.

Mr Kennedy: Premier, it was $4 million you took from this hospital. The money you took put this woman in the hallway, gave her four and a half days in the emergency ward. When she had to use a bedpan in Mike Harris's Ontario, it was in full public view. If you're going to condone those conditions and dismiss them, maybe you'll listen to her husband. Her husband has written a letter which I'm going to send across to you. His comment is: "The Harris government is responsible for these conditions, because of the slashing of funds to hospitals. The wrong people are making important decisions about hospital funding, politicians instead of the people familiar with the real essentials."

The Harris government is responsible. You are responsible, Premier, for the deplorable conditions that you've put Mrs Littlefair in. Not long after her release, she fell and injured her hip; in fact she broke her hip. She wouldn't go back to the hospital. She respects the staff, but you've helped make her afraid of the conditions there.

Will you deal with this? Will you put the money back into Civic Hospital? And will you call Mr Littlefair and explain to him why the care has been reduced for his wife and why she spent four and a half days in a hallway in the emergency room?

Hon Mr Harris: Obviously, we will look into any individual situation. I think the member is aware that there is currently a clinical audit at the hospital, an operational review of the hospital. We'd be happy to look into this situation. If you have a letter, as you said you had -- other than sending me across a clipping -- I'd be glad to look at a letter from the member. Given your record on accuracy so far, in spite of the inaccuracy -- and most of the stuff you give us is made up of fearmongering -- I'll still look into it.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Premier as well. Your amendments to the Health Protection and Promotion Act provide that as of January 1, 1998, municipalities will be responsible for 100% of funding for all public health boards and their programs. One of the programs that's going to be affected in this download is what is called the northern regional genetics program, which is run in all of northern Ontario. This program basically allows for testing for cancer patients, leukaemia patients, people who have hereditary diseases, people who have reproductive problems.

From the discussions we've had with municipalities across northern Ontario, it's unlikely that they're going to have the capacity, because of your actions with the download, to take on the financial responsibility you're handing down to them. I'm asking you as a northerner, will you ensure that the province of Ontario will maintain funding for this very important program to northerners? There are no other choices in the north.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I can absolutely guarantee you that we'll make sure they have the capacity to do so.

Mr Bisson: I take it we might have just won a victory. Did I understand you correctly? You're saying that yes, you will ensure that in northern Ontario the northern genetics program will be funded by the Mike Harris government after the downloading exercise?

Hon Mr Harris: I think I was quite clear. I will make sure that the dollars are available to do so.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm shocked. It's the first time we've actually got an answer from the Premier. I thank him.

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As you know, the Toronto International Film Festival is in full flight. It is a showcase of hundreds of excellent films made throughout the world, many of them in Ontario. My question pertains to job creation. I would like to know how the enhanced film tax credits that were announced first in the 1996 budget have created a number of new jobs and new film productions for both film and television in the greater Toronto region.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you to the honourable member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for his question. First of all I need to remind all members of this House that this government continues to spend close to $200 million annually to foster and promote culture in this province. That's not just spare change; that's really the hard-earned money of taxpayers of this province.

What's even more important is that this government is committed to supporting arts in new and innovative ways. I've been saying that for two years, and the three new tax measures for the film industry, the television and computer animation industry and the publishing sector is proof of that commitment. With a budget of $25 million, we also fund the Ontario Arts Council. That will be the major arts-granting agency for individual artists in this province.

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

Hon Ms Mushinski: What we need to do, however, is to change the way we do business. For example, does it make sense for an agency to spend $1,000 --

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Hastings: The supplementary pertains to, what are your future expectations in terms of job creation for the film and television production industries?

Hon Ms Mushinski: The culture sector generated 81,285 direct jobs in Metropolitan Toronto alone. In fact, Toronto has become North America's third-largest film and television production centre, after Los Angeles and New York. It's also the third-largest theatre centre, after London and New York.

The question becomes, how do you continue to assist a growing and thriving industry like film development? Again I return to the tax credit initiatives as a fine example of the new approach to supporting arts and culture as an industry in this province. In fact, the Ontario film and television tax credit has received 82 applications to date, which represents $13.3 million in credits.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with Ontario's credit rating. He will know that five years ago Ontario had an AAA credit rating. It was downgraded over the period 1990-95 three times. At the time, Mike Harris called that a disaster. We now are two and a half years into the Harris mandate and it still is the same credit rating that Bob Rae had.

The question is this: Yesterday we heard from the auditor serious concerns about the impact on the credit rating of Ontario of Hydro's current position. Obviously, you've had a chance to ask your officials to assess this. Can you tell us what they've told you and what you can tell the public about the possible impact on Ontario's credit rating of the current situation at Hydro?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): There is no possible impact at this particular point in time on Ontario's credit rating. As a matter of fact, the question that was asked by the member from Renfrew yesterday was talking about a statement that came out of Hydro on March 31 of this year. The credit rating agencies have all taken into account developments at Hydro, and after the Hydro report was released, all of them, as I'm sure he knows, reconfirmed Ontario's current credit rating.

Mr Phillips: I think the minister had better get himself informed about what is an important issue for the public of Ontario. Our credit rating costs literally tens of millions of dollars in extra interest costs with that credit rating. You said it had no impact. Here's what Standard and Poor's said: "Ontario Hydro's revised financial projection has the potential to push back the overall improvement in the province's credit profile." In other words, Standard and Poor's were very clear. They assessed it and they said in their opinion the position at Hydro does have an impact on the credit rating. For you to say otherwise frankly indicates you are not current with the credit rating.

I ask you again: Have your officials briefed you on this? What are they telling you about the potential impact on Ontario's credit rating? And can you confirm that the credit rating will cost literally tens of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Ontario if we remain at the current rate?

Hon Mr Eves: I repeat to the honourable member, all the major credit rating agencies have said that the province's credit rating is not in danger as a result of Hydro's recent announcement. Why didn't you read some of the other quotes?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Eves: He knew I would. Moody's, for example, after the Ontario Hydro report came out, said: "At this time the utility is expected to continue to service its debt without any provincial support. Moreover, the province is making significant inroads in reducing its budgetary deficit and stabilizing its debt profile."

You talk about cost to taxpayers in servicing the debt. I want to read to you the bond spreads between Ontario's 10-year bonds and Canada's: when you were in government, 38, 48, 50 and 54; the two years that we have been in government, those numbers are 23 and 14. Talk about costing Ontario taxpayers money.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Premier. I was with the strikers at PC World yesterday in Scarborough. These are strikers who have been on strike for eight months. They are standing up to an employer that is bringing in scabs to take away their jobs, scabs that you made legal under your Bill 7. They are standing up to an employer that has been found by the labour relations board to be bargaining in bad faith. This is happening all over Ontario. You are encouraging employers to take a hard line, to bring in scabs, to lower the wages and benefits of working men and women across the province.

Today the CAW has called on your government to appoint a special mediator-arbitrator to resolve this situation and, if necessary, they are prepared to submit to binding arbitration. Those strikers and the people of Ontario want to know whether you are prepared to direct your Minister of Labour to appoint such a mediator and resolve this dispute that you caused.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me first of all refer to the

preamble about labour relations in the province of Ontario. In the period since Bill 7, we have had more labour peace than we did before Bill 7 under your government: 2,900 collective agreements, and 96% of them, covering about 420,000 workers, were renegotiated without strike or lockout. The year 1996 saw one of the lowest number of strikes in the last decade and 1996 saw the shortest average strike length in six years.

To indicate in your

preamble that there is more labour strife now than there was with your government is incorrect. It is not true. The fact of the matter is, your stripping public sector workers of their democratic right to bargain and the actions your government took caused more labour strife than us restoring free collective bargaining to the process. Those are the facts.

Mr Christopherson: No, Premier, those are not the facts. The fact of the matter is that you've loaded up bargaining against workers in favour of employers in every situation in this province. When you talk about labour peace, the OPSEU strike, which did lead to blood on the streets, was the result of your Bill 7. You did that. The workers at PC World are not the only strikers, and I would remind you of the vision on TV last night of all those police officers ready to break that picket line because they have to enforce your Bill 7.

The workers at S.A. Armstrong, Premier, have been on strike for 17 months. Why? Because you've allowed scabs to be used in the province of Ontario and that's what's happening there. Your minister appointed a commission to look into that particular strike. She came up with some reasonable conclusions and some offers of resolving it. The union is prepared to accept those recommendations. Your minister refuses to appoint a mediator because the employer doesn't agree.

Premier, you caused this strike too. What are you going to do to resolve it?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me deal with the

preamble because you phrase your question with information that is not correct. You gave the NDP the right to strike, and then you took away not only their right to strike, you took away their right to bargain. Now you're talking about the strike with OPSEU, and you're right. We did have a strike with OPSEU. You raised the issue. I don't know how it helps you in your campaign, but I want to say this: You took away not only the right of OPSEU to strike, after giving it to them, but the right to negotiate.

You're right. We did have a strike with OPSEU following which Leah Casselman said the government is fair and reasonable. Never did a representative of OPSEU, never did Leah Casselman say you or your government was fair or reasonable, I can tell you that.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question today is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The people in my riding of Simcoe East are very concerned about the possibility of York region pumping 26 million gallons of water a day from Lake Simcoe to residential water taps in Keswick, Sutton, Newmarket and Aurora. That seems like an awful lot of water to me, and I can't help wondering what these historically important lakes and water systems which feed directly into the Great Lakes will look like in 20 years.

Minister, for those living around the lake, what studies are you doing to ensure that water levels will not be dramatically decreased by the proposed pumping station?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): This is, I know, a very important issue to the people of Simcoe East, and it's an important issue to Ontario because water levels are very, very important to maintain. The region of York has completed a master plan for their long-term water needs, and in implementing this plan, the region followed the class environmental assessment process which requires consultation with the public and government agencies.

The plan recommends four steps which have further requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act. At this time, the proposals -- and I say that plural -- outlined in the master plan are in the early stages of the planning process and each alternative requires different environmental assessment requirements.

The proposal to construct the water treatment facility at Lake Simcoe is in the preliminary stages of planning. Further environmental assessment requirements are needed, including an analysis of the environmental effects. There will be public and agency consultation. Everybody will have to do this before a green light is given to this kind of a proposal.

Mr McLean: I also have concerns for the Trent-Severn waterway which flows into Georgian Bay and becomes part of the Great Lakes system.. Will your studies also look at the effect pumping this much water out of Lake Simcoe will have on the sister lake, Lake Couchiching, and the Trent system, which is apparently lower than usual? What assurances can you give the people of Simcoe East that no environmental damage will result from taking water from Lake Simcoe?

Hon Mr Sterling: I know how important tourism and this waterway is to the people of Simcoe East and I know of his concern about the environmental impacts of any change with regard to the water quality.

I want to emphasize to the member that this is only one of several alternatives put forward by the region of York to meet their water needs until the year 2031. This one alternative requires a water treatment facility on Lake Simcoe, but it will require further work under the Environmental Assessment Act. Prior to implementing this proposal, the region must ensure that the proposal has been reviewed by many government agencies, including the Trent-Severn waterway agency under Environment Canada, and that any potential environmental effects associated with this project will be mitigable.

The member should also be aware that there will be public consultation. I want him to be assured that the concerns of the people of Simcoe East about this very important environmental issue will be heard.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, who I'm sure wants to protect the people of the province from gas prices that are increasing.

When I asked him the question before, he gave me an honest position of the government. He said, "Ontario motorists enjoy the most competitive prices, I think, in the world...I think overall Ontario is very well served." He said also, "If you travel across Canada, I think that the prices I see at the pumps...are quite fair." He went on to say, "We don't intend to dictate to companies what they should and should not do. I have no intention of interfering with the free-enterprise system, the pricing system. If we were to do that, we would be a laughingstock, sir. It would be a big mistake for this province. We would not attract business to this province."

You have within your jurisdiction, Minister, and you have important responsibilities in the government, the opportunity to recommend to the cabinet that it implement, by passing in this Legislature, a bill prohibiting the predatory pricing practices of major oil companies; that is, selling their product to independents at a higher price than your own people. Are you prepared to recommend that to your cabinet colleagues today?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very happy to respond to the member for St Catharines. As he is well aware, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is in Saskatchewan at the present time. He has taken to his meeting with his colleagues the resolution and the discussion that occurred I think last week. I don't have to say anything more because we're all waiting to hear how they respond.

I would point out that they will certainly make your colleagues in Ottawa aware of this concern we have and that I'm sure other provinces have too.

Mr Bradley: I'm glad to hear you point the finger somewhere else. Another Premier, in July 1975, who complained about high gas prices, actually took action in this House. Premier Davis, a Progressive Conservative, said on July 3, 1975:

"Today the government proposes to introduce

an act to be known as the Gasoline and Fuel Oil Price Freeze Act, 1975...the bill imposes a temporary freeze on refined petroleum products sold in" Ontario." The freeze...will be for 90 days beginning midnight tonight subject to limited extensions by the Lieutenant Governor in Council if the assembly is recessed or not in session."

He went on to say, "I have met with the principals of petroleum companies that merchandise products in Ontario...the wholly legitimate interests of the consuming public must be served. It must be clearly established that all charges made by the oil companies not arising directly from the cost of crude oil itself are justified."

This is Premier Davis taking action in Ontario because he knows it's within his jurisdiction. Sir, are you prepared now to recommend that your government take similar action as the government took in 1975?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I would like to remind the member that just recently there was a chance for his party to allow a vote on the discussion and they refused that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENCE LIBRARY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I hope I won't be disappointed by the answer that the Minister of Citizenship, to whom my question is directed, will give me. Minister, I want to ask you a question about public libraries. As you know, we went through third reading of this bill yesterday. I continue to be opposed, as many people are, to what you're doing by removing the protection for fees and removing citizen majority on library boards, but I don't expect you to retrench on those two basic points. But there is one issue that you know we've continued to raise on the governance of public libraries and that is with respect to the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library.

You know that there is overwhelming support for that board to continue to exist largely as it is presently structured; that is, separate from the others and not to be amalgamated with the other boards here in Metropolitan Toronto. Will you indicate today your willingness to accept or bring forward an amendment that would do just that, Minister?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I thank the member for Dovercourt for the question. During the committee meetings on Bill 109 I think there was unanimous agreement on the important role the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library plays both in the city and in the province. That's why we are going to continue to fund it and that's why we're making special provisions under Bill 148 to ensure that its special role is maintained.

The question of a separate Metro Toronto Reference Library board runs counter to the whole concept of the Who Does What exercise. The people of Ontario need simpler, more effective government. That's what they've asked for and that's what we've accommodated under both Bill 109 and Bill 148.

Mr Silipo: It sounds like I'm not going to be particularly pleased. I thought that where the minister was going was in fact to recognize what the whole library community has been saying, which is that the special nature of this library, which serves not just Metropolitan Toronto, as the minister knows, but indeed the province as a whole, warrants it also continuing to be governed through a separate board. That can still be done while maintaining the funding relationship that you wanted to maintain, both through the province and through Metropolitan Toronto, the new council to be set up.

Indeed, it would be wrong if you persisted in tying it to the new structure of the other library boards in Metropolitan Toronto that you are going to amalgamate.

You mentioned Bill 148. Minister, I just ask you again, will you reflect on this and bring forward an amendment through the Bill 148 committee stage that will reinstate or maintain the present status of this library to be governed as a separate entity under a separate board and still within the context of the new megacity?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I think it's important for me to repeat that our relationship as a provincial government with the Metro reference library will not change as a result of Bill 109. That having been said, we have ensured under Bill 148 that a new Toronto Public Library Board be deemed to be a special library services board. That will then allow me, as the minister responsible for the Public Libraries Act, to continue the special funding relationship, as well as to call on that board to provide the resources and services that are specified by the province. That provision exists under the old Public Libraries Act and will continue under the proposed Bill 109.

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREAS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I've had many calls from small business operators in Durham East, as well as from mayors and members of business improvement associations who have contacted me regarding the elimination of the business occupancy tax, the BOT, which has been lost or cut with Bill 109 and proposed in Bill 149.

My constituents have advised me that they need the strength of a business improvement association. As a previous council appointee to the BIA, I know the important function of this voluntary group and the vitality they add to our downtowns. Can you advise me, the House today and my constituents, like Ron Hope, Ron Hooper and Murray Taylor, if you have any consideration to finding a way to save these volunteer boards?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Durham East for his question. I think everybody will recognize that this government took some positive action by eliminating the business occupancy tax. It was a tax that was opposed by both business and the municipalities as being very difficult to administer and an unfair tax. The BIAs, as we all recognize, receive their levies from that tax. The revenues that were collected by that tax will now be on the realty tax and the BIA levy will be applied to that realty tax.

In most instances, the lease arrangements that tenants have with the owners include the payment of tax, so there would be no difference in the assessment. Where the tenant is not responsible for the business tax, the BIA levy would be assessed against the owner. There shouldn't be any significant change to that very important function that the BIAs provide to the community.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much for those very encouraging comments. I have a further question that I would like to ask the minister. Our government is listening to our constituents. Will there be any changes in the upcoming new Municipal Act that will affect BIAs in any other ways?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank the member for Durham East for his very good question. As members of the House will know, the government is proposing to do a complete rewrite of the Municipal Act. We now have that in draft form and we intend to put that out to all of the major municipalities and stakeholders for comments in the very near future, probably in a matter of weeks; a rewrite, by the way, that has been asked for by municipalities for about the last decade. We're finally taking action to make sure the Municipal Act is rewritten.

In that rewrite we will ensure that the government looks at the governance and operations of BIAs, to make sure that very important community function is protected and strengthened.

TVONTARIO

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question to the minister responsible for privatization. On June 26, you announced that TVO would be put through a privatization review. The TVO board acknowledges that it has to manage change at TVO in a highly creative way. They have put forward a plan to change TVO from a government crown agency to an independent, not-for-profit corporation.

TVO has in recent years introduced efficiencies and entrepreneurial instincts that the private sector demands while at the same time supplying the quality of programming that only a non-commercial, public service television network can provide. This programming includes innovative educational services and important services to the francophone community.

Can you assure us that the proposal that was put forward by TVO will be given full and proper consideration by the office of privatization during their review of TVO? If I've only got one question, I would like to add, what kind of consultation process have you put in place to make sure that all of those who are interested in the wellbeing of TVO have a chance to express their views?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): To the honourable member across the floor, I'll try to answer the four questions that I think were included in there. I want to assure the member that part of the privatization review process we put in place in March of this year did have a role for Ontarians to play as far as consultation is concerned. We believe that in assessing the options before we make a decision about which particular route we go, we should hear from Ontarians. We intend to do that.

As I said, we believe Ontarians have a role to play -- somewhat different, I might say, from the privatization efforts executed by your government and the NDP government across the floor. We will listen to Ontarians. That is, with respect to TVO, something we definitely plan to implement.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to give you notice under the standing orders that I'm filing a notice of dissatisfaction with the answer I had earlier from the Premier on the question of the northern genetics program. It would seem that the answer we got wasn't as clear we thought it was.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): He just said he was very happy with it.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You know, Minister of Agriculture, I don't know what happened, so we'll have to just let that pass.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

This has been signed by yet another 242 constituents in my riding. I've affixed my signature once again in full agreement.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by 26 residents mainly from the Toronto and Ottawa areas. The petitioners are petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the public is informed that bills are being debated in the House with enough time that they can ensure they have input and can study the bill. As a result, they are opposed to the changes in the rules this government has brought forward.

I have affixed my name to the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 211 people. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infant and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature,

"(

a) to pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices, such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care; and

"(

b) to pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by more people in support of a petition organized by Marjorie Archambault and others concerned about health care and hospital closures. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we wish this petition signed in favour of two hospitals to be kept open, and one board for the city of Cornwall."

I have also signed the petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition which I wish to present. It's signed by 370 people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

FERRY SERVICE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This is further to the statement I made earlier in the House. It's signed by the Wolfe Island bridge petition and it's addressed to the Parliament of the province of Ontario. It was presented to me today by Mr Walter Knott of the island, who is very much concerned about the contents of the petition. It states:

"Whereas the restructuring of Frontenac county has isolated Wolfe Island into a small new community with a limited tax base, and such restructuring also barred any assistance with ferry costs by any of the other new communities in Frontenac or the new City of Kingston; and

"Whereas the announcements of mega-week from the Who Does What review have placed full cost of operating the ferry service on Wolfe Island; and

"Whereas it is obvious that the only long-term solution to connectivity to the mainland is a fixed link (bridge); and

"Whereas the studies approved by the Minister of Transportation are clearly focused on obtaining private sector financing to provide the transportation linkage to the mainland, this will undoubtedly place the control of all developments on Wolfe Island in the hands of the successful bidder in order for them to recoup their investment; and

"Whereas the citizens of Wolfe Island must have control over any development on their island, this being consistent with the democratic process supported by the government of the province of Ontario;

"Therefore we the undersigned citizens of the township of Wolfe Island petition that the government of Ontario guarantee and provide the majority of funding necessary for a fixed link (bridge) to the mainland in order that the future development of Wolfe Island remain under the control of the democratically elected representatives of its citizens; and further

"That such guarantee of majority funding for a bridge be announced before any `memorandum of understanding' is signed with any successful bidder resulting from the current business plan study."

I have signed the petition as well, as I am in agreement with same.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have literally hundreds of different petitions here. I'll start with this one. It seems the government is having some problems with a whole bunch of issues. This petition deals with the following:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has broken its election promise by slashing millions of dollars from the education budget;

"Whereas by slashing the education budget these cuts are resulting in larger classes, less help for special needs students, loss of junior kindergarten, fewer resources for the classroom and teachers to help students;

"Whereas by amalgamation of school boards into superboards community voice and needs will not be heard or addressed, resulting in a less dynamic and productive education system less reflective of individual community needs;

"Whereas should future cuts continue, these will encourage the downward spiral of the present quality of education."

I've signed by name to that petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I rise today with a petition again on the issue of toplessness, courtesy of Kennedy Road Tabernacle and Bramalea Baptist Church:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public;

I am happy once again to affix my name to this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition signed by a number of Sudburians, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality commercial-free television that continues to focus 70% of its programming

schedule on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVOntario is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVOntario continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

I have signed the petition.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have another petition having to do with the following:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has repealed the employment equity legislation; and

"Whereas this legislation was designed to assist many disadvantaged groups; and

"Whereas in the past" -- and again now, and in the future -- "voluntary efforts to achieve employment equity have and will not work; and

"Whereas employment equity was working;

"We therefore demand that the government reinstate the employment equity legislation in the province of Ontario to a level playing field for all workers."

I have signed my name to that petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition regarding the state of education in Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that this human relation dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. The Minister of Education and Training should know how strongly we oppose the secondary reform recommendations being proposed by the ministry and the government.

"We therefore strongly urge the ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I have affixed my signature to this document.

JUGEMENT DE LA COUR D'APPEL

Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition des gens concernés de la région de Hawkesbury. À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

«Attendu que le jugement de la Cour d'appel a été en faveur de la dame qui ne portait pas de haut dans un endroit public ;

«Attendu que la majorité de la population de l'Ontario s'oppose à cette décision ;

«Attendu que cette décision est à l'encontre des valeurs morales et humaines de la majorité des résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario ;

«Nous, les soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Que le premier ministre de l'Ontario apporte un projet de loi qui interdit la nudité du haut du corps des femmes dans des endroits publics et qui spécifie des lignes de conduite pour les endroits désignés privés.»

J'y ajoute ma signature, merci.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition in support of family resource programs, and it's addressed to the Ontario Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector, which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas.

"We urge this government to make its budget reduction in areas where children and families will not once again be the target of cuts.

"Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care, which includes parents caring for their own children and the care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

I am affixing my signature to this document.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have another petition. The reason I have three petitions today is because there are many people in my riding who are fairly upset with the quick pace of change taking place in Ontario today. The petition is addressed to the assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Minister of Labour has introduced" a new bill "to drastically amend the Labour Relations Act, the Employment Standards Act and other labour legislation which has been brought forward by successive Progressive Conservative" and other "governments in recognition of the legitimate rights of employees of Ontario; and

"Whereas the implementation of" this new bill "undermines the fundamental democratic rights of employees to organize and to have access to collective bargaining; and

"Whereas employers have raised concerns about" this bill because it "will result in an increased number of strikes; and

"Whereas the Minister of Labour is proceeding with" this bill "without consultation with employee groups and without conducting public hearings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Minister of Labour to withdraw" all new bills that concern this issue.

I am affixing my signature to this document.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Although this petition may be somewhat out of date in light of the fact of the rather undemocratic methods that were used by the government to get new standing orders, I will file it with the Parliament in any event. It states:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care and quality education; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules, which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now reduced the amount of time that MPPs will have to debate the important issues of the day; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its rule changes, has diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly who are accountable to the people who elect them, and instead has chosen to concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I'm in full agreement with this petition and have added my signature to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES FINANCIERS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Grimmett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 140,

An Act to establish the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to other statutes / Projet de loi 140, Loi créant la Commission des services financiers de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased today to kick off the debate on second reading of Bill 140. This is a bill which follows up on a commitment made by the finance minister in the budget in May and it is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the provincial government's regulatory scheme with respect to part of the financial services sector.

Before I deal with some of the details in the bill, I'd like to say, as part of an overview, that the scheme in the bill is to merge the three entities that currently regulate insurance, pensions and some of the smaller financial institutions, some of the other financial institutions that are not perhaps as well known as the banks in Ontario.

The scheme of the bill is also to clarify the role of the government regulator and to establish an independent tribunal to which decisions of that regulator can be taken by members of the financial community.

The present process that exists in Ontario I think is worth reviewing because those people who may be watching, and perhaps some of the people here today, may not be aware of the current regulatory setup in Ontario with respect to insurance, pensions and other financial institutions.

The Ontario Insurance Commission currently licenses and registers people and companies dealing in the insurance industry and its main purpose is to ensure the solvency of provincially incorporated companies and supervise the business and market conduct of insurance companies. It also provides a dispute resolution service. It maintains the motor vehicle accident claims fund, a very important aspect of auto insurance in Ontario, to protect anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident where insurance is not involved.

It's important, as we review the current setup, to pay attention to my later comments on how the bill will set up a different regime.

The commissioner of insurance occupies a statutory position and performs both adjudicative and regulatory functions. There are some people who feel that the adjudicative and regulatory functions should be moved further apart and the bill addresses that concern.

The insurance commission also conducts hearings, and those hearings are held on issues such as licensing of life agents and orders regarding unfair or deceptive practices. It can take away adjusters' licences and limit conditions on the insurer's licence. Also, it can reduce the term of the licence and can seize the insurer's assets.

Those are some very important regulatory issues that the insurance commission currently deals with. I think it's important for the public to realize that under the new bill all of those functions will be preserved and carried out by the new Financial Services Commission or by the separate Financial Services Tribunal.

The Pension Commission of Ontario currently regulates the administration of pension plans through registration and filing requirements. Of course, its purpose is to protect the rights and pension benefits of members of employer-sponsored pension plans. It also administers the pension benefit guarantee fund, which provides compensation up to specified limits for pension plan members whose plans have a funding deficiency when their employer becomes insolvent.

The commission is a body of five to nine members, which performs regulatory and adjudicative functions. One of its functions is to ensure the solvency of pension plans in Ontario. Again, the pension commission holds hearings as well and those hearings could relate to such issues as payment of surplus money out of a pension plan. It deals with windup and partial windup of a pension plan. As many people would know, those are at times controversial issues. It deals with the registration and rejection of a plan amendment. It also deals with the appeal or review of orders and proposed orders of the superintendent of pensions.

The deposit institutions division of the Ministry of Finance is the third institution that is addressed in the bill. The ministry's deposit institutions division currently regulates the loan and trust industry. It regulates mortgage brokers, credit unions and caisses populaires. It licenses and registers companies, performs field audits, financial analysis, and its duty is to ensure sound business and financial practices are being followed in that field.

There are no adjudicative functions in the deposit institutions division that are comparable to the insurance and pension commissions that I've discussed, although certain decisions of the director of the credit unions and cooperatives branch can be appealed to the superintendent. Certain decisions of the superintendent can be appealed to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal and the courts.

You can see from the analysis of the existing system that there is considerable variation between those three agencies, if you will. In analysing the setup in those agencies, both the ministry and the industry have commented, when comparing Ontario with other jurisdictions, that there was a need to provide more clarification of the roles of the regulator, to try to distinguish between the role of the provincial regulatory body and a possible appellate body.

Also, by looking at other jurisdictions, the Ontario ministry and some of the people who from time to time consult with the ministry identified that in other jurisdictions steps have been taken to integrate those kinds of financial institutions into a more centralized body.

For example, we have Quebec's Inspector General of Financial Institutions, similar to what we have in the proposed bill, British Columbia's Financial Institutions Commission and also the federal government's Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. In all those cases, and in other jurisdictions in the United States and western Europe, there has been a move to integrate the regulation of financial services. In many cases it mirrors an integration within the industry, because when you look at insurance, pensions and financial institutions, they are in similar activities.

In some cases they are now the same companies that operate in all three fields. I think from that standpoint it makes sense to see our regulatory agencies integrated, and that is part of the scheme in the bill.

Obviously one of the purposes of integrating the agencies is to try and find efficiencies. There is good reason for that, not only because our government wants to be as efficient as possible with the public's money but also because currently the regulatory scheme is financed almost entirely by the industry. The industry is well aware that the direction we're headed in and the direction of all western jurisdictions is towards having those institutions that are regulated finance the regulatory service provided by the government.

So it is in the interests of the government and of the industry that the regulatory institutions be operated effectively and efficiently so that the costs to the industry of maintaining the regulatory scheme are not so high that they have to be passed on to consumers.

Generally speaking, the idea of pulling together the agencies is one that the industry recognizes is necessary, as does government. There are certainly savings I'll speak about later that are going to be realized from bringing them together.

I wanted to speak about the consultation process that preceded the drafting of this bill. The stakeholders in the community who have an interest in the agencies affected by the bill were notified that the ministry was looking into the prospect of amending the legislation. Most of the bodies that were contacted took the time to either send in written commentary or to meet with officials from the ministry.

I'll just provide the names of some of these organizations which I think are quite widely known and respected: the Association of Credit Unions of Ontario, the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association -- perhaps some of the members here today are members of these great organizations -- the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, the Credit Union Central of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Life Underwriters Association of Ontario, the Pension Commission of Ontario, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario.

There are many more, but that is an example of the kind of consultation that took place. All of those bodies, and more, were able to meet with ministry officials, provide them with their comments, and to some extent they were influential in the drafting of the legislation.

The legislation itself is designed to establish a new regulatory hierarchy in Ontario for the industry that we're trying to make sure continues to be regulated. The reasons for regulating these aspects of the financial industry are quite obvious. We want to protect the public and make sure the public maintains confidence in Ontario's financial services sector.

The new regulatory hierarchy that's established in the bill is the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. It will be composed of a chair and two vice-chairs. There will be a director of arbitrations and a superintendent of financial services. It's important to understand that there will also be a separate Financial Services Tribunal, which is an independent appeal review body.

The practice whereby the superintendent will have statutory authority and be responsible generally for first-instance regulatory decision-making is important for the industry to know about. I think the industry will grow comfortable with that situation. They will go the superintendent with an idea. For example, a pension plan might go to the superintendent and say: "We have this situation with our pension plan. We would like to do such-and-such with it." The superintendent will be in a position to provide a first-instance notice of proposed decision.

The person or party that's going to the superintendent will then decide whether they're going to accept that decision and carry it out or whether they're going to amend their suggestion; or they do have the option under the bill of taking it to the Financial Services Tribunal by way of appeal or review of that proposed decision from the superintendent.

One of the concerns raised by some of the people who were consulted by the ministry was that if the current bodies were merged, there could be the loss of expertise that's been acquired by people who sit either administratively or in a tribunal situation and make decisions. The legislation has been purposely tailored to make sure the experience and expertise of an applicant to sit on this commission would have to be considered by the cabinet and the chair of the Financial Services Commission before they're appointed.

The legislation designs the commission so it will ensure that the agencies will be sufficiently financed to cover their cost of operations. Each regulated sector will pay its share of the ministry costs plus the commission's costs, plus an equitable portion of the common services and overhead. The assessments will be set by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to cover costs of regulation, and the fees will be set by the commission with the minister's approval. The members of the industry are well aware of this. I'm told by the ministry that they're quite prepared to deal with that, because for all intents and purposes that is the reality under the current scheme.

I'd like to address also the kinds of savings that it is anticipated the merger of the three current regulatory bodies will bring about. To some extent, these are commonsense types of savings. For example, there will now be one administrative boss for this entire regulatory field. That person will be the superintendent, who is the chief executive officer of the commission.

He will be in a position to locate inefficiencies, identify where savings can be made and identify especially where the three bodies which currently exist at three different addresses may have an overlap in expertise, may have an overlap in knowledge. They may also be able to share some resources and share some knowledge so they can better perform those regulatory duties that are so important, such as perhaps finding bad operators, identifying areas in the industry that need attention, and there is the obvious opportunity to reduce overhead and to share resources that come from such a merger.

Bill 140 delivers on a commitment, as I said, that was made by the Minister of Finance to create a Financial Services Commission. The commission will protect the public, maintain confidence in Ontario's financial services and create a more efficient and effective financial services regulator by merging the three existing organizations.

By being more cost-effective and efficient, the new commission will enable the financial services industry to better serve consumers and business. This in turn will create a climate for job growth. We've targeted significant savings, particularly because costs are paid by the regulated industries on a cost-recovery basis, and reducing their costs will help keep the sector competitive.

The new commission's structure will provide the flexibility to deal with the increasing trend towards integration of financial services that we see in other parts of the globe. It also lays the groundwork to further streamline regulation and eliminate overlap with the federal government. This will enable us to further reduce costs and, by so doing, keep our financial services sector competitive.

We've consulted extensively with stakeholders to ensure the new integrated structure will provide strong consumer protection and maintain quality service. We've received a broad acceptance of the proposed agency structure.

In response to their emphasis on the importance of an independent appeal process, the new commission's tribunal will provide expert, prompt and effective review of regulatory decisions on pension, insurance and other financial matters.

Ontario is not the first jurisdiction to create an integrated financial services regulator.

Our government is committed to having rules that protect the public and help create a climate for job growth. Bill 140 is just one of several steps we've taken to regulate Ontario's financial services more efficiently and effectively.

Creating the Financial Services Commission is another step towards providing smaller, more efficient and cost-effective government. We're moving towards better regulation of Ontario financial services, improved consumer protection and maximizing the contribution of financial services to Ontario's economic growth.

Those are my comments for now. I'll allow my colleagues to make some comments.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Questions and comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We are now aware of the government position on the bill and what the bill contains. I should say to the member that I have a concern whether the resources are going to be available to deal with this bill. In other words, the government is passing a number of pieces of legislation these days, and if one were to look at them, one would say they may have some positive aspects to them. However, it is one thing to put down on a piece of paper, that is, in the form of a bill, that which the government desires to happen; it's another to have the necessary resources and staff to carry out that which is contained in the legislation.

I want to say that in so many other areas -- I think of the Game and Fish Act, for instance, as just another comparison -- what is contained in the government legislation is not offensive, in other words, it is probably supportable by all members of the House, but our concern would be that at the same time the government is bringing in this act, it is not providing for the necessary resources to carry out the responsibilities contained within the provisions of the bill.

We would raise the same concern. We hope that would be overcome. I recognize there's some self-financing that takes place, in other words, the affected individuals will be prepared or at least required to provide some funding, so that may alleviate some of the concern that there will be the necessary resources. But I would ask the member to comment again -- I think he mentioned some of that in his initial remarks -- on how many staff will be available to carry out the responsibilities and what kind of resources the commission will have to carry out its responsibilities. That would be a concern we might express.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We too, the New Democratic Party, feel positive about the proposal for Bill 140. Nevertheless we'll have to wait until regulatory bodies, regulation comes into being. It seems that this is the way government does things nowadays. They seem to be in a hurry, and, inevitably, you find the devil in the details.

Let me share with you and with the parliamentary assistant, with respect, one example. The credit unions are very much impacted by virtue of this bill. They will be asked to pay an annual fee. Let's keep in mind that the credit unions are pretty well the only competition that banks have. They don't know how much it will cost. They wish the bill to go to committee because, before they fork over, before they pay the annual fee, which will exceed, surpass $2 million, they want to know exactly how much so they can adjust, they can plan for the future.

Yet the government makes no mention of what that fee will be. But at 8 or 9 or 10 o'clock of a certain evening in the not-too-distant future regulators under no scrutiny -- the opposition won't be there, the credit unions won't be there, the client group -- it will be decreed that annually you must pay so much. Before you enter into any agreement, is it not reasonable, is it not sage to ask how much will the freight be? That's something we would do in our private lives, and the situation is no different. We intend to address this by rotation.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon and comment on the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay's presentation on Bill 140, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act. I just want to compliment the member on his fine speech. I think he's a very capable member and a very capable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.

When he was speaking today he spoke about the consultation --

Interjection.

Mr Newman: The member