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

April 22, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L178 - Tue 22 Apr 1997 / Mar 22 Avr 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUDBURY ISSUES

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

SCARBOROUGH SCHOOL ANNIVERSARIES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PASSOVER

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES CENTENNIAL

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL BOARDS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

SCHOOL BOARDS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

NURSING STAFF

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

AGRIFOOD SAFETY

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HIGHWAY FINANCING

RESTRUCTURATION DES MUNICIPALITÉS

SCHOOL BOARDS

CHARITABLE GAMING

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

SCHOOL BOARDS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SUDBURY ISSUES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This Thursday the Minister of Northern Development and Mines will be making a rare public visit to Sudbury to, we hope, make a funding announcement concerning the northern Ontario community cancer care program, which we have asked for repeatedly from this government over the course of the last year and a half. This worthwhile initiative and welcome announcement of funding will be the culmination of the hard work of the northeastern and northwestern Ontario regional cancer centres and the realization of the vision of the likes of Gerry Lougheed Jr and Dr Dahli Dahliwal, who have championed this cause.

The second reason for the minister's visit to Sudbury is to speak to the chamber of commerce. While I'm sure the minister will deliver a barn burner of a speech, he will likely leave out a few important facts. He probably won't mention the fact that the downloading exercise is not revenue-neutral. He probably will also forget to inform the people that the Sudburians in the region of Sudbury will be hit by $105 million of extra money because of this downloading.

He will probably forget to tell the chamber that the Partnership for Community Prosperity, a coalition of business and labour in Sudbury, has repeatedly been asking for a meeting with himself and/or the Premier for the last six months, but to no avail. The minister's rosy picture that he will try to paint will probably forget to mention that over 2,000 jobs have left the north because of this government.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Four months ago this Conservative government passed Bill 82, the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act. At the time the Attorney General said, "This bill will permit us at the earliest possible time to begin to have enforcement techniques that will be effective and will protect and put money into the hands of women and children."

The member for Dufferin-Peel went one further, no doubt at the urging of the Attorney General. He said: "By the end of January, we will begin the implementation of our key enforcement tools.... By the summer of 1997, all our tough new enforcement tools will be in place."

What a joke. This Conservative government has yet to make Bill 82 the law. The Attorney General in December had the audacity to suggest that the opposition was holding up passage of Bill 82. Now, four months later, this same Attorney General is still so incompetent that he can't even get his own bill passed into law.

There are no new enforcement tools in place today. Not a single woman or family counting on Bill 82 has seen one penny of support payments owing. Women and children who were told by this government that their problems would be fixed by Bill 82 have been completely betrayed by this Attorney General. He has proven to be as incompetent in getting his own bill passed into law as he has been in dealing with this plan since last August when he closed the regional offices and laid off 290 staff.

This Attorney General's treatment of women and children is shameful.

SCARBOROUGH SCHOOL ANNIVERSARIES

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today to call the attention to all members of the House to a landmark occasion in my Scarborough riding. In the space of a week, two schools in my riding will pass significant milestones. Birch Cliff Heights Public School and Regent Heights Junior Public School will both be celebrating 75th anniversaries in the month of May.

For the last 75 years, since 1922, these two schools have been an integral part of education in Scarborough and vital pillars of the community. A school is more than just bricks and mortar and desks and blackboards. Far more important than the actual physical school are the dedicated professionals who work to teach our children. It's the hard work and devotion of principals, teachers, secretaries, nurses and support staff that help our children to learn and grow in a safe environment. Both the schools have grown and adapted to the changing needs of education in this province over the years.

Regent Heights began as a frame portable built on Bexhill Avenue. Over the years it has moved several times as educators moved the portable around, rented additional spaces in community halls and church basements and renovated the portable. In 1946 construction began on the existing site on Pharmacy Avenue. The school has continued to expand and improve since that date, serving more students with more diverse needs.

Birch Cliff Heights began in 1922 as a four-classroom school with a basement. The school grew steadily until it consisted of 22 classrooms and a gymnasium by 1958. Enrolment peaked in 1962 at 761 students.

It is with great pleasure that I recognize these two excellent schools on their 75th anniversary and wish them the best in the next 75.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): The 12 municipal governments of Ottawa-Carleton, including the regional government, are willing to move forward with municipal governance reform. The 12 councils have already developed and unanimously approved a locally designed process. Unfortunately, governance reform in Ontario's second-largest municipality in the metropolitan area can't go ahead without the approval of the provincial government, but the only thing the Minister of Municipal Affairs says is, "Persevere and develop a local process."

Minister, they have a local process but you won't act. Why is it that when there is a local agreement, as is the case with Ottawa-Carleton, you won't act, but in the case of Metro Toronto, where there is no agreement, you are more than willing to impose your will?

Minister, in letters to you and the Premier, the mayor of Ottawa states that you have created an untenable situation. It's imperative that we seize on the climate of consensus in Ottawa-Carleton. The municipalities are together on this, but you are the missing link. Give your approval and allow governance reform to move forward in a stable framework by postponing municipal elections in the Ottawa-Carleton area until the late spring of 1998.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): If I could have a page come over, I have some materials I would like to have distributed to the members of the government caucus. I bring this back from a meeting I attended last night -- thank you, Stuart; give one to each of the government members on the other side -- which was the 20th weekly meeting of Citizens for Local Democracy. The member for Dovercourt and the member for Riverdale accompanied me to that meeting last night.

The government may have thought yesterday in passing Bill 103 and in rushing down the hall to the Lieutenant Governor's suite to get royal assent that the fight was over, that they had won the fight and they could just put this

chapter behind them. Quite frankly, exactly the opposite is true. Last night we heard the sense of conviction from Citizens for Local Democracy and the mayors of the municipalities in Metro Toronto that this will continue to be fought in the courts during the implementation.

I also want to let you know, for those of you outside of Metro who think, "This won't bother us any more," Citizens for Local Democracy groups are springing up in places like Kitchener, Peterborough, Belleville, coming to a community near you soon. What they've sent back to you, though, is a hope that you will listen in the future. It says, "Government, please clean out your ears." Here are a couple of Q'Tips. We hope you'll put them to good use.

PASSOVER

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): On the evening of April 21, Ontario's Jewish community, and indeed Jews the world over, began the celebration of Passover, the ancient Jewish festival of unleavened bread, the season of their freedom as the people of God, and the oldest continuously performed ceremony in human history.

Passover dramatically recalls the liberation of the children of Israel by God through the prophet Moses and their passing over from the place of their enslavement in Egypt to the promised land, "flowing with milk and honey."

Passover is a celebration of Jewish history and identity. The benedictions, the wine and other foods that are eaten at the Passover table, the recitals and the prayers -- all these bring to life the great events and the people of Israel's past. At this holiest time of the Jewish year, Jews renew a sense of peoplehood and community. They recall the days of history's glory, as well as the suffering that has been their historic companion on their journey to final freedom and statehood.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I would like to wish my Jewish community of Hamilton and throughout Ontario a very happy Passover, together with the holiday wish that we celebrate Passover next year in Jerusalem. Shalom.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I rise today to bring the voices of 132,000 petitioners to this Legislature. The citizens of this province are uniting across party and linguistic lines to implore the government to save the Montfort Hospital. The Montfort does not simply give a passing nod to equality of care; rather, it serves as a model of what the framers of Bill 8 could only dream about: a province where every person could feel totally at home.

Thousands of Ontarians are finally beginning to realize the deeper importance of the Montfort. It is not just a hospital; it is the heart of a community. Closing the Montfort would do nothing less than pull apart our history and traditions, which developed to meet needs that are as great today as ever.

On March 22 in Ottawa, some 10,000 people participated in a historic rally. In an outpouring of emotion, they delivered a simple message that nevertheless cloaks a complex reality: To protect a vibrant and historic community, the Montfort must survive.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Yesterday we sat in this place as the government passed Bill 103. It was a bleak day for everyone who has participated in that debate: a bleak day for the deputants, the countless deputations that we had in committee; a bleak day for the thousands of local citizens who have been involved all over Metropolitan Toronto in their efforts to preserve local autonomy and local government.

I was reading today a column by John Barber. He speaks rather eloquently of the work that those individuals have done in resisting and fighting Bill 103. He says:

"There is one thing that all parties to this debate, including the government, appear to agree on. They all say there is great passion and great talent in civic Toronto; that Toronto citizens care deeply about their city and how it is governed. The antis proved it with their miraculous, albeit fruitless campaign to resist the megacity. The Tories say they are counting on it to make the megacity work.

"I wish I shared the faith. There is only so much effort people can devote to a lost cause...and look where it gets you. Despite all the brave talk, the spirit is broken."

I have to tell you, from the discussions I've had with many people yesterday, the spirit is not broken. That spirit of fighting against this government against this bill and so many other bills that are coming will continue, and they will fight back against this government.

VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES CENTENNIAL

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This year the Victorian Order of Nurses, Canada's leading community health care organization, celebrates 100 years of innovative "Caring for Life."

The seeds of the VON were sown in 1896 at an annual meeting of the newly formed National Council of Women of Canada. Women from across the Dominion shared accounts of poor public health conditions in both the slums of the eastern cities and the frontier settlements of Canada's west and northwest. The meeting adopted a resolution asking Lady Ishbel Aberdeen, a founder of the council and the wife of Canada's Governor General, to establish a visiting nurses organization for Canada.

VON Canada received its royal charter the following year, and within a few months VON branches were established in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Halifax.

Today the VON provides more than 50 different services under the headings of visiting nursing, health promotion and support services. The VON employs some 7,000 registered nurses and allied health care professionals, assisted by 9,000 volunteers. While the organization is rightly proud of its high professional standards, volunteers have always been the lifeblood of the VON.

On behalf of all members in this House, I am honoured to thank the many thousands of Canadians who have contributed to the VON's success in meeting the health care needs of communities across our great nation. We wish you another 100 years of successful "Caring for Life."

ANNUAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 1996 annual report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario.

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Further, I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): The following is the title of the bill to which Her Honour did assent:

Bill 103,

An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto / Projet de loi 103, Loi visant à remplacer les sept administrations municipales existantes de la communauté urbaine de Toronto en constituant une nouvelle municipalité appelée la cité de Toronto.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to ask the indulgence of the House for unanimous consent to have the government make a statement regarding Earth Day today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for a statement on Earth Day? I hear a no.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Who said no?

The Speaker: Member for Fort York, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: As you know, the government has announced its intention to call for debate this afternoon an amended time allocation motion regarding Bill 104. In our view, this motion should be ruled out of order. I've provided you with a copy of my opinions on the subject earlier today to assist you in making a ruling this afternoon. With your indulgence, I will briefly outline my submission to the House.

The Speaker: With the greatest respect to the member for Algoma, it is simply on the order paper. It hasn't been called so it's not before the House. Those submissions will be properly made when that order is in fact called, if it is called.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Education. Minister, I want to talk to you about Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, which ought more appropriately to be called the Fewer Resources for Ontario Schools Act.

You tell us that your bill is going to improve the quality of education for Ontario students. We don't see it and neither do Ontario's parents, students or teachers, and neither, for that matter, do People for Education, who today released a very interesting report called Real Stories, Real Schools, which describes in intimate detail the impact that your policies are having on schools right now.

Minister, you tell us time and time again that it is your sincere and genuine intent to protect education in Ontario. So far you've cut $400 million. You tell us that you can find at least another $1 billion in there in savings. Furthermore, on your watch, over 50 Ontario school boards have laid off teachers. Tell us, why should we trust you when it comes to Bill 104?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the Leader of the Opposition, Bill 104 is a bill that will help to reduce the amount of duplication involved in our education system, reduce the amount of bureaucracy, reduce the number of politicians who are involved in our education system from about 1,900 to about 700. That is an awful lot of people.

I think a lot of folks who have done reports on this have recognized that we need to make these moves in order to improve our education system; in order to, most importantly, improve student achievement, because as I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, Ontario has ranked in about the middle of the pack in international and pan-Canadian tests in the past. Those kinds of results by the students of Ontario do not reflect the quality of our teachers -- obviously you have some of the most qualified teachers in North America -- and do not reflect the quality of our students.

We think we need to give our students a better opportunity. We think it's important that each student in Ontario have an equal opportunity to a first-quality education. That is why we've introduced Bill 104 as part of a step in reforms for our education system.

Mr McGuinty: You, sir, have a very serious credibility problem when it comes to being a protector of education in Ontario.

Because of you and your policies at least 25 boards across the province have been forced to cut junior kindergarten. Many others are struggling to keep it afloat when we all know, in our heart of hearts, that as we stand on the precipice of the 21st century we need more education, not less. Because of you another 23 boards have cut special education, education designed to meet the needs of those who are learning disabled; 23 boards have cut in that area. You're also the minister who declared guidance, libraries, even basic maintenance and heating as not constituting any real part of classroom funding.

I'm going to ask you again, Minister: Given this record of very dubious achievements, how can you expect us to trust you when it comes to Bill 104?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I find it curious at best that with those kinds of distortions, the Leader of the Opposition would talk about credibility. The only person whose credibility can be questioned in this House is the Leader of the Opposition when he opposes the changes in Bill 104, because if I can quote directly from the Leader of the Opposition, he said, "I think there's generally a fairly broad support for reduction in school boards." That was on January 13, 1997.

Let me address the issue of removing education from the property tax since that's topical: "That's a good thing to do." That's a quote from the Leader of the Opposition on February 1, 1997. If there's an issue of credibility, it rests there with the Leader of the Opposition, who is on the record as supporting the initiatives in Bill 104. Why don't you just help us pass the bill and improve education in Ontario?

Mr McGuinty: No matter what you tell us, the people in this province know what you've done to their schools -- not for them, what you've done to them. Students, teachers and parents know that class sizes today are larger. They know there are fewer programs and fewer services. You can't hide that.

But what they don't know and what you're not telling them is what will happen when you assume full control. You won't tell us how much you're going to cut once you eliminate local control of schools. You won't tell us the level of funding you plan to leave for students in different parts of the province. You won't even tell us about the transition costs that are going to be there when you proceed with your plans.

Given what you've already done to Ontario schools and given what you're not telling us about right now, how can expect the people of this province to honestly believe that Bill 104 is in the interests of Ontario students?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that as a result of the social contract some class sizes in Ontario went up. We find that unacceptable. I'm also glad the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that when his party was in power they failed to address the general legislative grant program in this province that has had second-class students, from a funding point of view, for decades.

This government is taking those issues on to improve education, to improve student achievement. What will be the results of our reform? I'm proud to say that the results of our reforms will be higher standards in each and every grade; testing of students province-wide, which we've already initiated this year; better supports for teachers; and a better of quality education for every student in this province. That will be the result of our reforms.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I think she's just coming in right now. I'll just allow her a moment to take her seat.

Minister, you will recall that yesterday I raised the shocking reality of the large number of cases of child abuse in our province: broken bones, cigarette burns, bruises and shattered spirits. You will know that we all have a very special responsibility to ensure that our children are protected and enjoy a good quality of life. Unfortunately, for too many of Ontario's kids this isn't the case. This is a time of crisis for our children, but your only action to date of any substance has been to cut 5% from the budget of Ontario's children's aid societies. That's $17 million that could have been used to help these children.

You're telling us, Minister, that for you protecting children is a top priority. If it's such a priority, then I want you to stand up right now and tell me why it is that on your watch 340 full-time staff have been laid off from children's aid societies in Ontario.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): My apology to the member of the opposition for not being here when he started his question. I was following up on an issue with a parent of a disabled kid from one of his backbenchers who gave me a letter which I asked my staff to follow up on.

I would like to reiterate what I said yesterday, that our government does take quite seriously what is happening at the coroner's inquest, the task force that the coroner and the children's aid societies, with the support of the ministry are undertaking, to try and see how the system has failed children in the past and what we can do to make sure they're not falling through the cracks.

As I mentioned, we announced last week almost $45 million to try and shift resources to intervention and prevention, the kind of steps we need is one of the things we've done, and there are many other things we have undertaken and are prepared to undertake in response to the task force to improve the system.

Mr McGuinty: That lends no comfort whatsoever to the kids of this province who are the subject of abuse today. You haven't listened and you haven't acted. In November 1996, the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies published a number of proposed amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. That was sent to the Minister of Community and Social Services in November 1996. It is now six months later and you haven't acted on a single one of those recommendations. Minister, if protecting Ontario's children is such a high priority for you, why have you failed to act on those recommendations?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect to the honourable member, we have not failed to act. We are in the process of doing many things in response to the children's aid society comments to us and also in response to the task force recommendations. They did their interim report some weeks ago.

Last spring we started the process for new risk assessment tools, to select what is called the single assessment tool to help workers make better judgements on risks. The implementation plan has been developed. It's under way; it will be finished by this fall. Last spring the consulting contract was signed for the new information system for the new computer technology; last summer, standards revised; last summer, protocols with the coroner and the children's aid society. I have a list here of the things we have done and we have under way to try and improve the system.

If the honourable member wishes to provide me with more suggestions and recommendations about how we can improve the system, I would be very pleased to hear them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, we've learned that it takes an average of 44 months before a child can be permanently rescued from abuse -- 44 months. If you are the subject of abuse and you are four years of age, you may very well have been the subject of abuse for your entire life before you are removed from that situation.

You have talked about some Band-Aid solutions. The fact of the matter is caseloads are going up; you're laying off full-time staff at children's aid societies. Concrete proposals have been put before you by the children's aid societies and you have failed to act.

Furthermore, when Mike Harris and Ernie Eves came to you and said, "I need 17 million bucks from Ontario's kids who happen to be abused," you know what you did? You didn't tell them to go fly a kite. You said, "You can have it." You're not fulfilling your obligation to Ontario's kids. You let $17 million slip from your hands.

What are you going to do, Minister? Tell me today for Ontario's kids.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Leader of the official opposition, thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I guess if the honourable member is so concerned about things that should have been done and legislation that should have been done, he might wish to ask his colleagues who were in the Liberal government when they didn't proceed with the legislation and the amendments that they brought forward, because we quite recognize --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: If the honourable member doesn't think that new investments for a new computer technology system to support the workers is helping; if he doesn't think that working with regulatory colleges to try and improve the education and support to professionals who are seeing child abuse or potential child abuse cases is worthwhile; if he doesn't think that $800,000 for professional education is worthwhile; if he doesn't think reviewing the legislation with an eye to enacting the recommendations that the coroner or the children's aid societies have put forward is worthwhile; if he doesn't think bringing in legislation to improve social workers, to make them self-regulating professionals, is worthwhile -- those are all things that this government is undertaking -- if he doesn't think they are worthwhile --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question, third party.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Earlier today the Minister of Education received a petition from school children. The petition reflects their fears and insecurities about what is happening in their schools because of his cutbacks to education. They echo what was said by children who appeared before the standing committee to ask you not to ram through Bill 104.

Grade 3 student Allison Elwell told the committee she is worried about losing her education. Like so many other Ontario children, she has already lost some library. These children are worried with good reason, Minister. It's their education that's going to be affected. They are the children who may see money taken from their classrooms to pay for your transition costs. Can you explain to Allison why you are ramming through a bill that already has elementary school children worried?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): In response to the leader of the third party, can I say that it's disappointing personally, and I'm sure to all my colleagues and to the members opposite, I'm sure, in many cases, that school children in this province have such a distorted view of what's in Bill 104. I'm not sure of the origins of that distorted view, but there are some people who actually believe that there are fiscal measures in Bill 104 and in some cases, as shocking as this may be, some children have been told by parties unknown to me that there are reductions and cuts to their school system intended by Bill 104.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Nothing could be further from the truth -- nothing. I want to thank my colleagues for pointing that out, because obviously -- thank you, Gerry --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Mr Speaker, I'll be brief. Obviously there's a time for some amusement in this House from time to time. Nothing, though, is amusing I'm sure to anyone about young children being used for political purposes. I find that repugnant. I want to be very clear that the purpose of Bill 104 is to reduce the bureaucracy in our education system and to reduce the number of politicians in our education system.

Mr Hampton: The only thing we're not amused about, Minister, is your cavalier attitude. As you go about cutting $5 million and $6 million from this year's education budget, from school boards, when you promised you wouldn't do it, people have good reason to be worried.

But it gets worse. Yesterday you shamelessly told a press conference that you don't know what the cost of transition will be for Bill 104, you don't know how many school board staff will lose their jobs and you don't know how much money is needed to educate a child in Ontario. In southwestern Ontario you're going to force the amalgamation of four boards, and they already know that the 1997 transition cost will be $2 million. They don't know where that money is going to come from. They're afraid you're going to force them to take it out of the classroom.

Minister, it's a serious question: Will you make Allison and all those other children a promise? Will you promise her that she won't have to lose any more money from the library and from the classroom to pay for your transition costs?

Hon Mr Snobelen: One of the reasons I was so pleased to make an announcement earlier that assured students across the province that in their 1997-98 year there'll be no interruption in programs and what's offered to those students is that we wanted to allay those fears that there would be some interruption in the quality of education during that year. There will not be, and we've made that assurance.

We know for certain that the results of Bill 104 will be a reduction in the cost -- outside estimates are $150 million a year -- for waste and duplication and bureaucracy in our system. We know that, and we also know that the actions of the leader of the third party have delayed the passage of this bill by three weeks, have delayed getting the answers --

Applause.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The glee of the third party at delaying three weeks and wasting $2.5 million is obviously as good today as it was yesterday, but I can tell you this: That delay is delaying the school boards, the ministry, the Education Improvement Commission from getting on with the business of having this transition, of making it smooth for the benefit of our students. I'd call on the leader of the third party not to further delay, to let us improve the system of education for those students.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a supplementary regarding the implementation of Bill 104 if it passes. I have the draft guidelines for the establishment of the local education improvement committees that have been published by the proposed Education Improvement Commission.

These committees will have to be established by trustees in existing boards. They're going to have to set up subcommittees, including human resources subcommittees with employees represented. They have to appoint coordinators and establish steering committees. They will make recommendations to the commission. They will develop amalgamation work plans with time lines. They will develop and implement local communications and consultation strategy. They will prepare an inventory of assets and liabilities on existing staff of all involved boards.

They will play a role in determining trustee distribution in the new boards and they will report regularly to their existing boards. They have to do all of this by December 31 of this year, just eight months from now.

Minister, aren't you setting up a situation which will ensure that this work cannot be done in time, will not be done properly? You'll then blame incompetent school boards. Why don't you do this in a time frame that is reasonable and short?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Even the member for Algoma should be embarrassed to talk about time compression as he and his party delay the passage of the bill. I think that's sad.

We've heard a lot about this bill, a lot about what's in 104. Let me read you a statement that I think brings it home:

"Many statements have been made by various organizations and individuals concerning the consolidation of school boards. The opposition supports changes in administration but objects to the undemocratic and paternalistic way in which the government has proceeded. The third party says the government is preoccupied with the structure at the expense of equality in education. Trustees and trustee organizations have expressed concerns that with fewer trustees and larger units of administration many small municipalities will not be represented. Federations have stated that the reorganization of boards may dilute the quality of education."

If this sounds familiar, it should. Each of these statements was made in the 1968 amalgamation process, which was previously so highly disparaged. Those are the comments of Walter MacLeod. We hear this on and on again. Let's get on with improving education for the students in Ontario. Let's get 104 passed. Let's get on with amalgamation.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Premier: The people of Ontario are becoming more and more concerned about the Conservative government's trashing of environmental protection in Ontario. It's obvious this government doesn't care what I say about their attack on the environment and they don't care what environmentalists say. But today, on Earth Day, Ontario's independent Environmental Commissioner has sounded the alarm about this government's sorry environmental record. Here's what the commissioner said today: "If we continue along this path, our right and the right of our children to a healthy environment will be jeopardized."

My question to the Premier is this: What will it take to get him to realize that his government has to stop clear-cutting the laws that protect Ontario's environment? What will it take?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As we are speaking here, the Minister of Environment is visiting with the US states to deal both with water quality and with air emissions in the border states as part of a coordinated program to deal with the environment here in Ontario and the role that we can all cooperatively play in that area.

On balance, if you look at the Environmental Commissioner's report, a report, I might add, that we welcome, a report that is quite complimentary to this government in particular and to the ministry in a number of areas, by and large complimentary --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): What page?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): What page? Where is it complimentary?

Ms Martel: One paragraph. One sentence.

Hon Mr Harris: At the same time, though, as is the role of the Environmental Commissioner, they point out areas they want to make sure we are concerned about and that we all --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Premier. The members for London Centre and Sudbury East, come to order, please. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: It's obvious that the Premier hasn't read this report. Premier, this report has nothing good to say about your government. In fact, this is what it says in reference to your government's decisions. In reference to one decision, it says, "This decision most likely increases the risk of inadequate drinking water testing in Ontario." Drinking water, Premier -- essential for human health.

Then it says, "With budget and staff cuts announced in 1996, it is questionable whether MNR will be able to adequately audit and enforce the law." Then it says: "Mine closure and rehabilitation compliance staff have dropped from 18 to five. One thing is clear -- cleanup costs will be passed on to the taxpayer" -- from the mining industry on to the taxpayer. Then it says, "Ministries demonstrated an alarming lack of environmental vision."

Premier, do you really think the people of Ontario support your agenda of chopping environmental protection in this province, of putting the fox in charge of the environmental henhouse, of putting our province's --

The Speaker: Thank you very much, leader of the third party. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I think the public of Ontario share our concern with the environment, share our concern equally, I would say. The commitment of this government is that the legacy we leave to our children and our grandchildren and next generations -- just as important as not spending their money today and balancing the books, an equal priority of this party and this government is that we not spend the environment today at the expense of our grandchildren and future generations.

We are very much committed to sustainable development. We are very much committed to channelling our environment resources where they can do some good. I might add, since you mention the Environmental Commissioner, she has some advice for us in some areas that we take very seriously. In other areas, she says:

"I commend the Ministry of Environment and Energy for addressing some of the technical and administrative recommendations I made in my 1994-1995 annual report.

"The environmental registry has now been tested and proven a cost-effective way to open the door to government environmental decision-making."

The Speaker: Thank you very much, Premier. Final supplementary, member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Thank you, to the Premier, for pointing out that it was our government that brought in the Environmental Bill of Rights. I say to the Premier, take this report and read it. It is a devastating report. You should pay attention to its advice instead of the PR you're doing here today. It talks about the fact that all kinds of environmental changes and deregulation are going on in secret, behind closed doors, just like you're doing everything else in this government.

Premier, as the Environmental Commissioner says, the problem is that the commission last year stopped testing water supplies and has forced municipalities to pay private labs up to five times as much as the cost in the ministry labs. That means taxpayers are paying more, and it's not even a legal requirement that they're certified or accredited labs.

Premier, is this government so out of control, are you so determined to download and privatize, that you won't even take responsibility for safe drinking water?

Hon Mr Harris: Of course we do take responsibility and accountability, as do municipalities, which have quite an interest as well. Many of them, as you know, already own their own water and water treatment facilities, and they take it very seriously, and as their partners, we take it very seriously.

But I might add that while the commissioner points out some things -- some of them are ongoing -- some of them are complimentary and some are areas we should look at. That's the purpose of having the Environmental Commissioner.

The commissioner also says, for example, "The Ministry of Environment and Energy was the most consistently proactive in opening the door to its environmental decision-making processes." I'm just quoting from the report.

It says, re the Niagara Escarpment pits and quarries, "Together, high-quality public submissions and the ministry's commitment to consider what the public had to say made this a better decision."

"Generally the ministry's processes for posting proposed policies, acts and regulations, reviewing and considering public comments, and posting decisions were well designed."

Yes, there are some areas, and that's the purpose and the reason to have the Environmental Commissioner: to say some areas we should look at. We will look at those.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. New question, official opposition, the member for Hamilton East.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm standing and you're standing, and one of us is out of order. The member for Hamilton East.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier as well. Premier, if you had read the report, rather than the whiz kids in your office picking out two or three quotes, you would clearly realize that this is nothing more than a brutal indictment of your record as Premier and your minister's record with regard to protecting the environment.

You have compromised the quality of drinking water in Ontario with your cuts. You have compromised environmental standards in air emissions across Ontario with your cuts. You have abandoned your commitment to the Niagara Escarpment Commission with your cuts. You have made moves that have set environmental standards in this province back 20 years in your continued obsession for this tax cut to your rich friends.

Let me read something you said on June 5, 1995. "`I don't think you'll find a cent there cut out of the environment,' he said. `We were able to find $6 billion in cuts without cutting the environment.'" Premier, those are your words, not mine, not the opposition's.

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr Agostino: Premier, can you tell the House why you've betrayed the people of Ontario and broken this promise and clear commitment you made not to cut one cent out of the environment?

Hon Mr Harris: As I recall, we said we would look for efficiencies within the operation and administration, not anything that would affect the environment. Let me give you some of the things we've been able to do with the dollars available to us that are in fact improving protection to the environment, which is our goal.

We released new landfill standards, including requirements for siting, design operation, monitoring, protecting ground and surface waters, controlling landfill gas, continuously planning financial assurance. Those clearly defined standards are among the toughest in the world, and neither the Liberal government nor the NDP government had the guts to go on the record and set those tough standards.

We've undertaken a comprehensive updating of environmental legislation. We've introduced administrative changes to five acts to replace outdated language, obsolete requirements, outdated methods of serving orders.

We are putting our dollars to actually protecting and improving and cleaning up the environment and we will continue to live up to those commitments.

Mr Agostino: The Premier obviously doesn't remember everything he said. I'm going to remind him again: On June 5, Premier, you said, "I don't think you'll find a cent cut out of the environment."

Let me remind you what you've done since that time. You have cut, not one cent, but $111 million out of the Ministry of the Environment's budget. That is the largest percentage cut to any ministry since you have become Premier of Ontario: $111 million, when you promised you weren't going to cut one cent. That was the promise you made on June 5.

You have cut 725 jobs, or 31% of the workforce of the Ministry of the Environment. You have done that when you promised you weren't going to cut one cent. It is very clear what you have done: You have lowered the standards. You have basically turned over control of the Ministry of the Environment to the private sector, turned over control that is going to take us back 20 years.

Can you explain to the House again why you made the commitment in June 1995 that you weren't going to cut one cent, but you have since then cut $111 million?

Hon Mr Harris: We committed that we would not cut one cent from dollars going to protect the environment, but if there's waste we cut the waste, and we are reducing that waste. At the same time --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Other things we've done: We've introduced and passed Bill 76,

An Act to improve environmental protection, increase accountability and enshrine public consultation in the Environmental Assessment Act. We've submitted Ontario's voluntary challenge and registry program to the federal Minister of Natural Resources, producing a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000.

I'll tell you something that is very different. I could read off the list of things we've done. We measure success in the environment by results. You measured it by how many dollars you could waste. Instead of how many dollars you waste, we measure success by results, and we will stand on that record of results of protecting the environment.

NURSING STAFF

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is also for the Premier. Today 15 nurses from Mount Sinai Hospital tried to meet with you to explain the impact of your government's budget cuts on patient care in their hospital. You, as I understand is usual, refused to meet with these front-line workers, so they're here in the members' gallery and they want to hear your answers to the questions.

Premier, 94 nurses were laid off today from Mount Sinai Hospital. That's almost 20% of the nursing staff. Already the number of patients to each nurse has jumped from three to four. These nurses are deeply concerned about the impact of these cuts on the quality of patient care. Not only do they have more patients because there are fewer of them, but these patients need a higher level of care because of the shortness of their hospital stays.

Premier, you need to understand these layoffs have nothing to do with hospital restructuring in Metro. They are the direct result of your government's budget cuts, $6 million of budget cuts to Mount Sinai this year. Are you going to tell these nurses when you're going to step in and restore patient care in their hospital and in this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of Health is, yes.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for the question, because indeed during this period of transition and restructuring in our health care system, the nurses and the front-line workers need all of our understanding. That's why we're putting millions of dollars into retraining programs.

An astonishing press release on March 12 said, "Survey Points Towards Increased Employment Opportunities for...Nurses." That's put out by the arm's-length College of Nurses of Ontario and it says:

"A recent survey undertaken by the College of Nurses of Ontario among its 111,179 members predicts that the province of Ontario will face a shortage of nurses at the turn of the century. According to professor Johanne Pomerleau, director of Laurentian University's school of nursing, `The results of the survey indicate that there will be an increased demand for baccalaureate-prepared nurses in all sectors of health care after the present health restructuring is completed.'"

With the $170 million that we've invested in community-based care, with the $35 million we've put into hospital-based cardiac care --

Interjections.

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

Mrs Boyd: It doesn't surprise me that the Premier wouldn't answer the question. It's very clear that the minister is an apologist for his government. He knows that he's taken $800 million out of hospital budgets and that's resulted in 5,000 nurses losing their jobs, and it's scant comfort to those nurses to know that three years from now there may be an oversupply. Why? Because they've left the field?

Because these nurses whom we've trained through our education dollars, who have a commitment to their patients and a commitment to their community, are having their careers destroyed by your indiscriminate budget cuts that are coming at a time when what we need is a careful plan to restructure this system, a plan which in fact ensures that quality of patient care is there.

When are you going to accept responsibility for the fact that your budget cuts are causing real problems for patients and you're refusing to listen to the experts who are telling you what their observation is about the deterioration in patient care?

Hon Mr Wilson: I've had seven years in my place in this House listening to nurses, and nurses, through their own advertising campaign, say there's waste in the hospitals that has to be addressed, that every dollar has to be put into front-line patient care. The College of Nurses of Ontario, at arm's length, says that in a few years there will be a shortage of nurses because of the tremendous reinvestments.

The Premier made a $42-million announcement last week on children in this province. That creates 200 nursing jobs for public health nurses. Cardiac nurses are working Saturdays and Sundays now to try and get us the lowest waiting list in the Ontario; 4,400 new jobs are being created in the community sector through the investment of $170 million, the largest single investment in the history of Ontario.

The health care budget is up $300 million this year, and during the five years that honourable member was in office, 14,000 nurses were laid off and went through the health services training and adjustment program -- 14,000 nurses, no vision for health care, $100 million --

The Speaker: Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

New question, the member for York East.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'd like to bring some more good news to the attention of our friends opposite. My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. You're aware of my interest in the needs of children in this province. In fact, together with me, you have met personally with a number of the dedicated child care workers in my riding, something I appreciate very much, as I know they do as well. Just last week you announced you would be giving funding to continue the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program. I wonder if you might explain to this House why you decided to continue that particular project.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much, to the member, for the question. We have recognized that the research and the support the Better Beginnings program is putting forward has been supporting 4,000 families in eight low-income neighbourhoods and communities around the province. It is demonstrating that the kind of support it puts in place for low-income families actually does show a decrease in crime, actually does show a decrease in child abuse, and for that reason we felt it was appropriate to take it from a pilot project that was destined to end this year to regular full-time funding, because we think the program should continue.

I'd also like to note that this spending has also supported 1,000 hours per month of volunteers who help in these community programs.

Mr Parker: Minister, you mentioned there's a home visiting component to that program. I also know that last week you, the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education together announced there would be money for the healthy babies program. That program also does home visits. Isn't there an overlap between the two programs?

Hon Mrs Ecker: Again a very good question. The healthy babies announcement that was done last week -- I think one of the things that's important to note about that announcement the Premier made was that the ministries of health, education and community and social services are working at trying to integrate our funding and our programs to better serve the vulnerable people who need the help.

The healthy babies program, as my colleague the Minister of Health mentioned, is a screening program using public health nurses and other support workers to go out and screen some of the 150,000 newborns, where as the Better Beginnings is a community program that is supporting families in low-income neighbourhoods. Both programs, we know, will work very well to help us improve intervention and prevention services for children in Ontario.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and the subject is Ipperwash and the shooting death of aboriginal Dudley George. This is really to the heart of the matter, and that is your role in this affair.

We've now had from you two versions of your role in it. One version is you have said to us that you have no files, no records because, "We had no involvement." "At no time...was there any direction given by any political staff or any politicians as to what the OPP should do...." That's what you said in the House.

We now have had another version released publicly and that is the minutes of the meeting that took place the day before the shooting. I might add that attending that meeting was an elected Conservative member, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the Premier's executive assistant, and a senior OPP officer who was acting as a liaison between this meeting and the police.

What the minutes say is that the province has taken the decision -- the specific words are, "The province will take steps to remove the occupiers as soon as possible." In other words, the minutes say, "We've already taken the decision; get them out." It goes on to say, "The OPP will have the discretion only as to how to proceed to get them out."

My question to you is this, Premier --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm sorry, time's up. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we have to be very careful. There is a court case that is there. It's before the courts and I think we need to respect that; at least I think reasonable people would want to respect that.

We've been very clear: Absolutely no political direction was given to the OPP. Any briefings any of my staff attended would get a report from the OPP as to status. Any action that was taken by the government as a result of any of those meetings that would require action was to seek an injunction. That's a matter of public record and I don't think I'm affecting the court case by indicating that was the action the government was taking.

How anything was to be carried out I think has been confirmed by the OPP. There was no direction. There were no meetings to give any direction. We were not wanting to give any direction. It was not our role to give any direction, and I don't think you'll find any record of any direction because there was none.

Mr Phillips: I would say in terms of jeopardizing the court case, Premier, the day the court case opened, that very day, April 1, the headline was, "`Ipperwash group was breaking the law,' Premier says." You had your mouth all over this case on April 1, the day it opened.

In your own minutes it's clear you made the order: "Get them out of the park as soon as possible." It then goes on to say that the police will be allowed to determine how to get them out but not whether to. The police wanted to negotiate this. They wanted a peaceful settlement, it was clear. I've read Commissioner O'Grady's remarks very clearly.

He says, "Yes, the government didn't give us tactical advice, they gave us," what he calls, "broad policy direction." In other words, the direction was, the senior OPP officer at that meeting, your executive assistant -- by the way, the minutes say to report back to you the results of this meeting. That meeting said, "Get them out of the park as soon as possible," and it instructed the OPP to move forward on that. It says the decision on how will be left to them.

The question for you is, you've now given us two different versions of this. Will you agree to a public inquiry so we can get to the bottom of this matter and find out specifically --

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I just want to be clear. The member is quoted as saying in his question that he has a minute that says the OPP were instructed. That is not true. You do not have a minute that says that. The OPP were never instructed. There was no direction given to the OPP, and I suggest you may want to withdraw that at the appropriate time.

I will tell you this: What we took action on as a government is a matter of public record. We felt there was an illegal occupation. We said so publicly. We as well took the action that is a matter of public record to seek a court injunction. That is the action the government took. There was no direction given to the OPP before, after or during any other situation; no direction given by the government, no direction given by any of our staff, no direction given by any of the ministers. We said all along that is it.

I would suggest to the member that you may want to review very carefully the information you lay before this Legislature, because it is false and untrue.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Repeat it outside, Gerry. Go ahead.

The Speaker: Order. I know the rules, the member from Ottawa. I understand. Premier, you must withdraw "it is false and untrue."

Hon Mr Harris: Done. Withdrawn.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Premier. Premier, on March 6, you said in response to a question from me that all of Women's College Hospital's programs, staff, administration would be moved to Sunnybrook hospital. In addition, you said the programs of Women's College would be augmented by another $10 million. You said, "We on our side will suggest we're in favour of enhancing the programs and the services provided by Women's College Hospital, including maintaining the name and the programs and the staff and enhancing them."

That is not what the commission recommended, and we now have a letter to the chair of the commission from your government indicating support for the commission's recommendation to close Women's College, to lose the independence of the board, to lose its funding and its independent programs.

Premier, which is it? Are you concerned about the future of women's health or are you going to allow your government to proceed with closing down and destroying 86 years of excellence and innovation at Women's College Hospital? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

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

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

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The comments the honourable member uses to quote the minister are what the commission -- I'd ask the honourable member to read the commission's report again. The commission has directed that all programs delivered today by Women's College be maintained and enhanced. They have directed that the programs move to a new building which has been built for those purposes, C wing at Sunnybrook hospital, replacing an 86-year-old building downtown.

In our response, we've also picked up on what the commission has recommended in terms of a sexual assault clinic to be located downtown, in terms of ambulatory care services for women to be located downtown. Those are our suggestions as party to this process. I know the minister for women's issues has made similar suggestions to the commission.

I'd like to know what the opposition parties said to the commission, because that seems to be the greatest secret in this province right now. What did your submission say to the commission?

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Churley: I am shocked that the Premier would not answer my question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Ottawa-Rideau, you seem to come in right at the very end when you're the only noticeable voice. Thank you.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): You can't hear me.

The Speaker: I do hear you. Even when you're almost beneath the desk, I still hear you. Supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: To the Minister of Health, I'm disappointed that the Premier didn't answer, because they were his words I was quoting. But I want to guarantee the Minister of Health that what the Premier said in this House and what is said in this letter, which I have a copy of, is completely different. It says various things. For example, it uses the phrase "the Ministry of Health supports"; it says, "the government supports"; it says, "I support"; it says, "we support" all over the place, and it's then signed by an ADM on behalf of the deputy minister. In addition, we know what the Premier said.

He said, "We are in favour of expanding Women's College. You" -- whoever -- "have made your opinions known on this."

By your own actions, your political house is one of straw. You have intervened where it is politically suitable, in the case of rural hospitals, and you have now intervened in the case of Montfort Hospital in Ottawa. A letter from the ministry is the same as a letter from you and a letter telling Duncan Sinclair what to do.

Minister, will you commit therefore today to stand up for women's health and write a letter to the commission and ask him to keep Women's College --

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: On March 8, the scientist at Women's College, in a Toronto Star article, pointed out that the $10 million that the commission is recommending -- that's 10 million new dollars -- be earmarked annually for research on women's health "`would represent a significant improvement' said Cecil Yip, vice-dean of research in the school's medical faculty.

"`You are seeing an expansion in terms of research on women's health,' Yip said.

"`It's about five times the amount they have ongoing there (at Women's College) right now. It will be really boosted in terms of women's health research.'"

If you don't believe the government and you don't believe our sincere efforts and the commission's sincere efforts to improve women's health in this province, maybe you'll believe the vice-president of research at Women's College itself, who says it's five times more to spend on research than they're currently able to do today; it's an improvement to women's health services in this province.

Ms Churley: It's pretty clear --

The Speaker: Member for Riverdale, come to order.

Ms Churley: I was answering the Premier.

The Speaker: No. You ask the questions; they answer them. It's that way.

Ms Churley: But they don't answer them.

The Speaker: Order, member for Riverdale. The member for Scarborough Centre.

AGRIFOOD SAFETY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I stand in my place today as an urban member to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs regarding our outstanding agrifood industry. While the agrifood industry may be primarily located in rural Ontario, it affects every Ontarian, urban and rural.

As you know, Minister, the Canadian Environmental Law Association recently released a report stating that there are toxins in Canadian produce and meat. I know that our agrifood industry is the best. What can I tell my constituents, urban constituents in Scarborough Centre, about this report? Will you assure those who have read the report that our food is safe?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague for that question. It's my understanding that this report was put together from a hodgepodge of research that was done over the past and had no new studies at all. I can assure the people of Ontario and my colleague from the city that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, along with the federal government, is making sure that the safety of our agrifood products is number one.

In fact, a 1994 food inspection report established that 99.73% -- that's a pretty precise figure -- was absolutely safe for consumption. Our importers of Canadian and Ontario food products know the quality that we have, and sometimes it's a well-kept secret. I support the best environmentalists that we have. They are the food producers and the farmers of this province.

Mr Newman: I appreciate the minister's response to my question. As a supplementary question of the same minister, today is Earth Day. Is it not important to recognize the valuable service provided by Ontario's farmers with respect to the environment?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: On Earth Day I am proud to tell you that, again, the best environmentalists are our food producers. They are the best stewards of our land. I'll tell you, if the Canadian Environmental Law Association --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): And who are they?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Apparently they're legal people, and I'll take the farmers' word over lawyers' any time at all.

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Education regarding the strike at York University, if you'll pay attention to me. On March 20, a strike began at York University. Thirty-three days now have passed. The silence in your government is deafening. You're the minister responsible for colleges and universities. What are you doing to facilitate the end to this crisis you have created?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Scarborough North for bringing this matter to my attention today. Obviously we have been monitoring very carefully the situation at York because there are a number of students who have had their education interrupted. They've had some of their future goals interrupted. Many of those students are looking forward to summer work to help support their education. Many others are looking to get entrance into graduate programs both in Ontario and in other jurisdictions, and they need to have their marks.

I have talked to faculty at York. I have talked to the administration at York about how they might overcome the hurdle they have in front of them in order to reach an agreement that both parties can live with. I know there has been in the last few days some movement from both sides looking for an agreement. I, like everyone else in this chamber, encourage both parties to work together in the interests of the students and, frankly, in the interests of the future of the province.

We continue to monitor; we will continue to watch it very carefully. If there is a moment where my intervention can be of some assistance to those two parties, I will be more than happy to put in whatever effort I can.

PETITIONS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition signed by 132,000 people opposing the closure of Montfort and it reads as follows:

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que la recommandation de la Commission de la restructuration des soins de santé en Ontario ordonne la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort ;

«Attendu que l'hôpital Montfort joue un rôle à la grandeur de la province pour les francophones de l'Ontario en desservant non seulement la population de l'est mais également celle du nord ;

«Attendu que la recommandation ne tient pas compte que 40 % des francophones de la province de l'Ontario résident dans le bassin de service de Montfort ;

«Attendu que le comté de Russell n'a pas d'hôpital ;

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

«Nous demandons que le premier ministre de la province intervienne fermement auprès de la Commission de restructuration des services de santé de l'Ontario afin que soit préservé le site actuel de l'hôpital et que soient consolidés la vocation, le mandat et le rôle essentiel que joue Montfort auprès de sa communauté.»

I will affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control over schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and fail to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we are concerned about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence to the government in the province of Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

HIGHWAY FINANCING

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I would like to present a petition on behalf of some of the constituents of my riding of Bruce. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario established the gasoline sales tax to pay for future construction of highways and bridges and for ongoing maintenance to maintain a safe transportation system within the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the provincial government is transferring ownership of recognized provincial highways and bridges to local municipalities; and

"Whereas the provincial government is cutting transfer payments for provincial highways through smaller towns and villages normally called connecting links;

"Therefore we, the council of the town of Port Elgin, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To fully disclose all moneys derived from the gasoline sales tax to all affected municipalities, and to provide to all affected municipalities that are to be given care, control and maintenance of these highways and bridges the appropriate ratio of funding from the gasoline sales tax."

I'd like to affix my name to the top of the petition.

RESTRUCTURATION DES MUNICIPALITÉS

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition qui vient de 13 écoles élémentaires catholiques de Prescott et Russell.

«À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que le gouvernement de l'Ontario se propose de changer entièrement la structure de relations entre la province et les municipalités sans avoir consulté la population de l'Ontario ; et

«Que cette restructuration propose de transférer aux municipalité le coût des services de transport et des services sociaux essentiels tels que l'aide sociale et les soins de longue durée à l'intention des personnes âgées et des personnes atteintes d'une maladie chronique ; et

«Enlève aux conseils scolaires leur habilité à lever des impôts, éliminant ainsi tout pouvoir de contrôle réel sur les écoles et les programmes scolaires ; et

«Que par ces mesures le gouvernement manque à son engagement de garantir les niveaux de financement actuels et ne reconnaît pas que les diverses collectivités locales n'ont pas les mêmes moyens de faire face à ces nouveaux fardeaux, créant ainsi une inégalité d'accès aux services essentiels ; et

«Considérant que le gouvernement ne manifeste pas l'intérêt pour une consultation réelle du public, qu'il ne prend pas en compte les réactions du public et qu'il constitue ainsi une grave menace pour la démocratie ;

«Nous, les soussignés résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, parce que nous nous soucions de la qualité de vie dans notre province et du bien-être de nos enfants, de nos voisins, de nos voisines et de nos communautés, déposons par la présente un vote de non-confiance à l'endroit du gouvernement de la province de l'Ontario.»

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition that is signed by over 6,000 citizens of London in support of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 190. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we oppose the provisions provided for in Bill 104 in which the Education Improvement Commission, which is an appointed, not elected, body will conduct research, facilitate discussion and make recommendations to the minister on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services by district school boards; and

"Whereas this will adversely affect students, school safety and building cleanliness;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that Bill 104 in its present form is not acceptable to the citizens of Ontario and we demand the right to maintain in-house, non-instructional services in our school boards."

I am proud to affix my signature in support of this petition.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It's signed by more than 500 signatures. I'd like to read the petition:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario that the residents of the city of Barrie do not want a charity permanent casino and video lottery terminals located in the city of Barrie."

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas improper catch and release methods of sport fishing have a long-lasting effect on any given body of water; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing netting during spawning season, which destroys spawning beds; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources is not encouraging proper management of fish stocks by allowing any size of fish to be retained; and

"Whereas sport fishing of Lancaster perch and other breeds in greater Cornwall greatly benefit local tourism, fishing and the overall economy and will continue to do so if managed properly;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Ministry of Natural Resources to impose a seven-inch size limit on fish allowed to be kept, not allow netting during spawning season and also to reopen the provincial parks in the area to encourage tourism and ensure a vibrant long-term sports fishing area in our part of eastern Ontario."

I also have affixed my signature, and it's signed by 328 residents.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 476 residents of Etobicoke. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are residents of Etobicoke who hold of major importance the education of the young people of Ontario;

"Whereas we are committed that the control and accountability of the education system and the determination of educational priorities remain at the local level;

"Whereas we hold that Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, 1997, completely disregards the rights and opinions of the people of the province of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel that the Education Improvement Commission is being given sweeping powers that not only make it unaccountable for its actions but also place it and its members above the law;

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

"To cancel the proposed legislation to disband local boards of education; cancel all plans to take away from local boards of education public accountability, determination of educational priorities, and the power to raise education taxes through property taxes; and to disband the Education Improvement Commission with its arbitrary powers immediately in order to restore to this province the true democracy that the people of Ontario hold so dear."

I support the petition, and I affix my name thereto.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition, and unlike some of my colleagues, I'll comply with the standing orders and summarize the petition rather than reading it. This petition is concerned with some of the attempts by our government to amend legislation, particularly with respect to municipalities and school boards, and questions confidence in the government of the province of Ontario. It's signed by approximately 227 of my constituents and I believe it's in order. I'll sign it today.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): "Whereas Mike Harris and John Snobelen promised to give Ontario students a better education and to make the education system more accountable; and

"Whereas there is nothing in Bill 104 or in prior bills to indicate how or whether the education of Ontario's students will improve; and

"Whereas Bill 104 severely undermines an important level of local, democratically elected representation; and

"Whereas Bill 104 allows the government to appoint an Education Improvement Commission with sweeping powers that reports to the Minister of Education; and

"Whereas the fact that Bill 104 states that decisions of the Education Improvement Commission are `final and shall not be reviewed or questioned by a court' indicates a severe lack of regard for democracy; and

"Whereas the radical change to the structure of the education system called for in Bill 104 and the undue speed with which the government is attempting to pass and implement Bill 104 indicate a severe lack of regard for democracy; and

"Whereas democracy is the system that makes government accountable,

"We, the undersigned, demand that the government withdraw Bill 104."

I affix my signature to this petition.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition from all across the province, including Elliot Lake, Sudbury, Espanola, Dryden, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms or the use of guns in violent crimes; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I sign my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to restructure completely the provincial-municipal relationship without having consulted the people of Ontario; and

"This restructuring proposes to download to municipalities the cost of transportation and such critical social services as welfare and long-term care for the elderly and the chronically ill; and

"Removes school boards' ability to tax, eliminating any effective local control of schools and school programs; and

"The government's actions fail to guarantee existing levels of funding and failure to recognize the unequal ability of local communities to bear the cost of these new burdens, thus producing inequitable access to essential services; and

"Whereas the government's lack of meaningful public consultation and disregard for public response pose a serious threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, because we care about the quality of life in our province and the wellbeing of our children, neighbours and communities, register a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario."

It is clearly signed by literally hundreds of Ontario residents and I've affixed my signature in full agreement.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition for the Minister of Labour and to the chair of the WCB. It reads as follows:

"We are deeply disturbed at the news that the WCB's appeal system will lose its independence on June 2, 1997. Appeals are very important. Justice will not be served by this move. It is astounding that such a dramatic change could be initiated without public consultation and with no public announcement. Keep the WCB appeal system independent."

It's signed by, I would say, almost 100 injured workers in the city of Toronto.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on pre-budget consultation, 1997, and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Chudleigh: Not at this time, thank you, Mr Speaker, but I move adjournment of debate.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the wish of the House the motion carry? Is it agreed? It is agreed. That is carried.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Welland-Thorold has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Attorney General concerning the family support plan. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Riverdale has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Premier concerning the Environmental Commissioner's report. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MEDICINE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mr Kwinter moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Medicine Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 126, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les médecins.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is it the wish of this House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Mr Speaker, am I not entitled to a brief statement?

The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Wilson Heights for a statement.

Mr Kwinter: This bill ensures that physicians who provide non-traditional therapies or alternative forms of medicine are not found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence unless there is evidence that proves that the therapy poses a greater risk to a patient's health than the traditional or prevailing practice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or the order of the House dated February 6, 1997 relating to Bill 104,

An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the order for committee of the whole House be discharged and that the bill be ordered for third reading;

And that one sessional day be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

In the case of any divisions relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(

g) shall be permitted.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Johnson has moved government notice of motion number 16.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I indicated earlier today, we intended to raise with you a point of order related to the government House leader moving this motion. It's our contention that the motion should be ruled out of order. I've already submitted opinions to you and I will put them on the record.

In our view, this motion is out of order for two reasons: First, it violates a very fundamental right of all members of the House to move amendments to public bills; second, our standing orders do not permit such a motion to be debated.

On February 6, 1997, this House passed a motion allocating time for the standing committee, the committee of the whole House and third reading stages of Bill 104. Our party objected to that motion and voted against it, but the government's motion was within the rules of the Legislature. The motion very clearly stated that committee of the whole House consideration would take place. The motion stated that the deadline for submitting amendments for committee of the whole consideration was 2 pm on the day the bill was called for committee of the whole House debate.

The sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms says, "The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word, with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable." That's from the sixth edition, page 205.

Parliamentary practice and our standing orders give members the right to move motions at either a standing committee stage or committee of the whole House stage. You will recall that on Bill 103 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing used that right to move substantive amendments at the committee of the whole House stage, after choosing not to move a single amendment at the standing committee.

With regard to Bill 104, our caucus decided to adopt a similar approach. Wednesday, April 2, was to be the first day that the committee of the whole House consideration of Bill 104 appeared on the daily business sheet, so we submitted our amendments around 1 pm that day and shared our amendments with the other parties in the assembly. Now it appears that the government intends to amend the assembly's time allocation motion to deny members the opportunity to amend the bill at the committee of the whole House stage.

Our caucus and the official opposition caucus are being denied the right to move amendments to this very important bill, amendments which we might have moved at the standing committee stage had we known the government was planning to amend the order of the House.

I would point out that the amendments we intend to bring before the House, before the committee, are based on submissions that were made in the hearings across the province at the standing committee stage.

The proposed amendment from the government raises very serious concerns with regard to the process in this House. Think for a moment about how a government could abuse its ability to amend time allocation motions to retroactively change the deadline for submitting amendments. The result would be that one party in the assembly would know the deadline for submitting amendments and the other two parties would not. Surely this is not acceptable.

It seems only fair that if the government insists on not proceeding with committee of the whole House consideration of the bill, the bill be ordered back to standing committee, to ensure that our right to amend the legislation is not eliminated.

According to Beauchesne, "The Speaker may make alterations to proposed motions or may refer them back to the member for correction" -- sixth edition, page 50. I suggest that you would be perfectly in order to make such an alteration to this motion or rule it out of order entirely.

I would also submit that the consideration of such a motion is contrary to the rules of this assembly and to parliamentary convention. Standing order 51 reads as follows: "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session." This assembly has already decided how it wishes to proceed with this piece of legislation and time allocation. It's already been decided.

The sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms contains the following reference: "An old rule of Parliament reads that a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgement of the House. Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session."

There is precedent in this assembly for a motion being ruled out of order because the House had already reached a decision on a similar motion. On October 28, 1982, the then Speaker of the assembly ruled that a motion moved by Mr Peterson, the member for London Centre, was out of order because the matter had already been debated and voted on by the Legislature in that very session. At that time, the Speaker quoted standing orders of the assembly as well as Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, as well as Beauchesne. I refer you to Hansard, page 4651, October 28, 1982, where the Speaker made that ruling.

For these reasons, Speaker, I suggest you rule this motion out of order.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, I think a compelling case has probably been made this afternoon for ruling this motion out of order. I'm sorry to pre-empt the government House leader, who I thought was going to rise and agree with that.

The motion does not allow the opportunity for anyone in this House from any of the parties to submit amendments in committee of the whole. While the committee process itself allowed for the opportunity to submit and have voted upon certain amendments, and that indeed was done, there were representations made by hundreds of groups and organizations and individuals, and perhaps thousands of written submissions, that were heard by the various parties and by the committee.

Those who wanted to see some of these submissions reflected in amendments will not be able to do so today, because the government wishes to cut off the option to present amendments. Our party had a significant number of amendments which we wished to put forward in the name of the member for Fort William, the Ontario Liberal critic in the field of education.

I well recall on October 28, 1982, when Mr Peterson of the Liberal Party at that time endeavoured to bring forward a motion and have it debated and voted upon, only to be ruled out of order by the Speaker. If my memory is correct, it was Speaker Turner at the time who ruled it out of order because the topic had been debated and voted upon already in that particular session.

I think the case has been made. The government has become jittery over the process of the committee of the whole and for this reason wishes to circumvent that process. I think they're unnecessarily jittery about it, but nevertheless I understand that the government House leader feels that way. Of course I hope you will rule in favour of the submission which has been made that this motion is out of order.

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson: Not too surprisingly, Mr Speaker, I would submit very strongly that this motion is indeed in order. There has been a point put forward with regard to the committee of the whole process, but I think we all realize here today that the committee of the whole is not a mandatory part of the flow of any legislative proceedings. It's an optional part. It can be entertained, indeed is entertained in some situations, probably not so much in the future as in the past, given the circumstances over the last three weeks where we entertained some 12,000 amendments through committee of the whole on Bill 103.

However, I would say that of the nine bills we've had out through committee work over the past month or so, only two of them have been steered at one point in time through committee of the whole and the other seven have not been steered in that direction whatsoever.

The standing committee, as was pointed out, did meet with regard to Bill 104, did have public hearings, did entertain amendments. Indeed I might say that one of the NDP amendments was actually passed, was put before the standing committee and was passed. That amendment dealt with an amendment to allow students to be represented on school boards. There is a specific example of an amendment put forward by the third party which was entertained through the standing committee and it's currently now part of the bill; it was approved. So amendments have been entertained by all parties and some have been passed and some have not been passed.

I don't believe there's any provision to order this bill back to a standing committee. I think it's in order to rule whether this particular motion is in order or not, obviously, but I submit it would not be the proper course of action to send this back to committee where it has already received great attention through the standing committee -- many hours, many amendments considered.

In terms of standing order 51, which is the other aspect that is being put before us today, I think it's clear and the practice has been clear that the rationale and application of standing order 51 has always been applied to the governance of the province, not to the scheduling of legislative business. There's the important distinction and I suspect one will find that in the case of the instances that have been put before us today, it has been applied to the governance of the province, not to the scheduling of legislative business.

I can give you for instances. For example, just last year an order of the House was made on November 28, 1996, relating to clause-by-clause deliberation of Bill 82. The November 28 motion directed all amendments which had not been moved by 5 o'clock on the date specified to have been moved. However, a superseding motion was passed on December 3, 1996, and moved that time from 5 o'clock to 8 pm. So here is a motion that was approved by this House dealing with the legislative business before this House that was agreed upon.

I can give you another example. The order of the House dated November 2, 1995, still in the same session, is superseded frequently. For example, on Thursday, December 5, 1996, I moved a motion which read as follows: "That notwithstanding the order of the House dated November 2, 1995, the standing committee on resources development be authorized to meet beyond 6 pm on Monday, December 9, 1996, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 86,

An Act to provide for better local government by updating and streamlining the Municipal Elections Act, the Municipal Act and related statutes." That motion was adopted, another instance where an order of the House was superseded, and again it has to deal with the legislative business.

I would submit on both counts that the motion is in order. It is a time allocation motion. It is introduced with the phrase "notwithstanding...the order of the House dated February 6, 1997." Therefore I would also submit, based on that wording, that it is indeed even a different matter, if that's helpful. There are different circumstances. The "notwithstanding" clause does make it a different matter, as an additional point, but the practice certainly has been that the scheduling of the legislative business has been amended on numerous occasions in the past.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I would like to speak to both points that have been raised. Let me first begin with standing order 51. I'd like to talk about the precedent that has been set in this Legislature, the actual ruling that was made, because I believe you've indicated on a number of occasions that is the first place we look to, the standing orders and the rulings that have been made with respect to those standing orders.

In the ruling my colleague the member for Algoma referred to of October 28, 1982, the Speaker, upon reviewing the motion that had been put by Mr Peterson at the time, directed the attention of the members of the Legislative Assembly to standing order 39 at the time. I would point out to you that the content and reading is identical to our current standing order 51. Through rule changes, there has been a renumbering, but the content is exactly the same. He goes on to spell that out, that it reads, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session."

He makes some specific references; first of all, to Lewis on page 39, which says, "Any matter which has been the subject of a motion or amendment decided in the House cannot again be brought forward during the same session."

He refers then to May on page 368 and quotes "Matters already decided during the same session," and states: "A motion or amendment may not be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. The rule may be fully stated as follows:

"`No question or bill shall be offered in either House that is substantially the same as one on which judgement has already been expressed in the current session.'"

Then he gives a reference from Beauchesne and says that it is substantially the same ruling and/or commentary as in May. He goes on to find, therefore, under the authority of the standing orders that in his opinion the "motion which has been offered is, indeed, contrary to the standing orders of the House."

One of the interesting points is what follows in the Hansard.

Mr Nixon, who was the seconder of Mr Peterson's motion, rises to draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that while on two days within the same week a substantially identical motion had been moved, on the first day -- and I don't have the date in front of me, but it was the Tuesday of that same week of October 28 -- the question that had been put to the House and the question that was decided was a motion of, "Shall the debate proceed?" He points out that in fact the meaning of that question is, "Should the debate proceed on that day?" There was a division and there was a vote on that, and the government majority at that point in time voted in the negative, that the debate should not proceed.

He put to the Speaker therefore that there was a very different substantive issue. It was not the amendment itself which had been decided on but a procedural matter, which was "Should the debate proceed?"

The interesting thing here is that the Speaker, in having reviewed this, says, "I think, with all respect, I am bound by the rules of the House and my

interpretation thereof. I have explained that..." and maintains his ruling.

So the substance was similar but the motion that had been put forward on day one of the House entertaining this particular motion, the question that was put to the House, was very different but it dealt with substantially the same subject matter. The Speaker found in that case that his ruling was applicable and maintained his ruling.

They then went on in the House to seek unanimous consent to actually deal with the same substantive motion, and in fact the House granted unanimous consent and the debate proceeded along those lines.

I think that's a really important point, because the types of procedural motions that the government House leader has referred to as precedents in this House, which have, for example, extended times of sittings of committees or added days of sittings of committees, are ones which have had the consent of the House to be dealt with. In fact, in both the situations the government House leader cited, they flow from agreements of House leaders with respect to the handling of the business of the House. That's a very different circumstance than what we see here before us today.

The motion that is before us today is one which, when you cut away all the language, comes down to saying that the order for committee of the whole House be discharged. That's the key essence, the intent of the motion. The motion is attempting to bypass the committee of the whole process.

The minister has spoken to the fact that the committee of the whole process is not mandatory, that it is optional. I'd point out to him, so is committee stage. These things are decided along the course of dealing with a bill. In this case, I would point out to him that should this motion not be dealt with and passed today, in fact committee of the whole is mandatory because it was passed in a time allocation motion by this Legislative Assembly.

Section 46(

a) of our current standing orders is the

section that deals with time allocation. It indicates: "The government House leader or any minister of the crown may move a motion with notice providing for the allocation of time to any proceeding on a government bill or substantive government motion." The motion itself, the time allocation motion, the content of the motion is to time-allocate the bill.

Mr Speaker, on February 6 such a motion was put before this Legislative Assembly, was debated and was decided upon. The motion we have before us today is of the same substance: a time allocation motion. I would put to you that it is particularly with respect to the issue of committee of the whole House that you must determine that this matter has already been decided.

On February 6 the motion that was put before us had a process for dealing with committee of the whole which involved an hour of proceedings and review and debate and questions and answers on amendments, after which all outstanding amendments deemed to be moved must be read in and then must be voted on. That question of how committee of the whole House should be handled with respect to Bill 104 has been debated and been decided by this Legislative Assembly. The intent and substance of the motion here before us today, which is in its effect to discharge the committee of the whole House, is dealing with the same subject matter that this Legislative Assembly has already decided.

I step back to the first argument that my colleague from Algoma put forward to you, which was one about whether it can be in order for the government at this stage in the process to move a motion to change the rules of the game, essentially.

I want to combine these two arguments now, Mr Speaker, and say to you that I believe very strongly in your role as safeguard of the rights of the minority in the House. You must look to what the practical effect of a finding that this motion is in order would have.

My colleague presented to you a scenario where, after amendments had been filed by 1 o'clock of the day the order was to be called, pursuant to a time allocation motion of a nature like the one passed on February 6 -- the opposition parties file their motions and then, two days later, the government passes a motion and says: "No. We're going to retroactively change the filing time. It's 1 o'clock the day before the matter is to be called as an order of the House."

The prejudice to the rights of the minority must be understood in that circumstance, and the finding that this kind of motion is in order could leave open that kind of circumstance.

I don't believe that the government's argument that rule 51 only applies to substantive motions or government bills is one you can find as substantive or as having any basis in our rules. Rule 51 is contained in the

section on motions. There is absolutely no distinction with respect to whether this is dealing with a motion, a bill or a substantive motion. Clearly, whether it be procedural or whether it be substantive or whether it be a bill, the rule says that if a question has been put and has been decided in the affirmative or the negative by this Legislature, it may not be put again without perhaps unanimous consent, and we have seen occasions on which that unanimous consent has been given.

Mr Speaker, if you were to find that our arguments with respect to standing order 51 were not arguments that would lead you to rule this motion out of order, I believe you still have a role with respect to the protection of the rights of the minority.

In this case, I want to point out to you the sequence in time of what has occurred. Had the government indicated prior to the standing committee stage that it intended to change the rules and to eliminate the committee of the whole, the opposition parties would have been made aware of that and would have had an opportunity to submit any further amendments at the standing committee stage.

But that's not what occurred. The opposition parties were led to believe that the government would proceed as had been set out in the time allocation motion passed by this Legislative Assembly and that there would be two opportunities on which to deal with amendments to this piece of legislation. It does not matter whether in other bills, the seven the minister referred to, there is committee of the whole or there is a standing committee. What we're dealing with is the instance before us, in which the opposition parties were informed of a process and were told of the rules the process would follow and would be governed by and acted according to those rules.

The prejudice to the members of the opposition and the minority, who did not have the knowledge that the government would change the rules some time down the road and did not therefore submit all substantive amendments at the standing committee stage, is great if you should at this point in time allow the government to proceed with this retroactive changing of the rules.

I suggest to you that our submissions on standing order 51 are very strong, and I hope that on that basis you will rule this out of order. But second to that, if you do not, I hope you would take the suggestion of the member for Algoma that you, as Speaker, have discretion and that you have the ability to direct the mover of the motion and/or to find a resolve to this, which may be to direct this bill back to the standing committee so we could deal with the substantive amendments the opposition parties have put forward.

I think to find -- simply that it is in order and to allow it to proceed at this point in time is a great affront to the rights of the minority for full knowledge and full participation in the process of setting legislation in this assembly.

The Speaker: The member for Fort William.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I will be very brief because I won't reiterate the points that have already been made, but I did rise earlier to make a point which now is further to the last point made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, although from a somewhat different perspective.

With respect to the government House leader, I would suggest that the argument that it is quite appropriate for any bill to be referred directly to third reading from standing committee and not go to committee of the whole is simply not relevant. We all know that. There are many examples of bills which are not referred to committee of the whole which do go directly to third reading. That's not the issue here.

The issue is that the government did have a time allocation motion which it brought in and which was duly passed in spite of the objections of the opposition. That motion then directed the business of the standing committee on social development in considering this bill, following both second reading and following the public consultations on the bill.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine has suggested that changing the motion now would prejudice the minority rights of the members of the opposition and the opposition members of the standing committee on social development. I would suggest, somewhat differently, that the change in this motion prejudices the work of the entire standing committee on social development, and I would make that statement in two respects.

The first is that the time for the standing committee on social development to consider amendments, to consider the input from the public consultations, was already very brief. It was to be enhanced by the admittedly very limited one hour for further debate on amendments that was to take place in committee of the whole, according to that same time allocation motion. I think it's fair to assume that if there was to have been no committee of the whole from the outset, an argument could have been made that at least that hour of further debate time could have been added to the debate time for the standing committee on social development.

Beyond that, and perhaps less theoretical, is the fact that in doing the business under the time allocation motion that was in place, the standing committee on social development unanimously made recommendations for referral of a small number of amendments to committee of the whole. Those amendments included a government amendment which was deferred and referred to committee of the whole and an opposition amendment which had received unanimous support in committee.

I believe that had we had any sense that there would be no opportunity to consider those amendments in committee of the whole, they clearly would not have been referred by the standing committee on social development. There was a clear intention on the part of all members of the committee on social development to have those amendments included in the body of the bill. They related specifically to the government's concern that native representation and representatives who are on public boards representing separate school ratepayers for secondary school purposes would not be included in the limited number of trustees that constitute the elected portion of the new boards.

There was a further opposition amendment that was again approved unanimously by the social development committee to allow for student representation on the new boards. The government recognized that it would then have to change its amendment to ensure that student representatives were not part of the elected complement and therefore, because they wanted to look more carefully at the wording, they referred all those amendments to committee of the whole.

It would have been very easy, if we had known that committee of the whole was not to take place, to have made the appropriate changes and have those amendments passed at the standing committee on social development. They would then be incorporated in the amended bill, as in fact the other government amendments are.

I would submit that the understanding that we were working under in the social development committee, that was directed by the government's own time allocation motion, has now been altered and that it would be most appropriate for the government now to refer those amendments at least back to the standing committee on social development so the now unfinished business of that committee could be completed.

Hon David Johnson: Simply to reiterate, it's the government's contention that because of the "notwithstanding" clause, this is in fact a different matter. What is at issue here is whether this motion is in order. That's what is at issue here today. Because of that, we view that in fact it is in order; secondly, even beyond that, it is again dealing with the scheduling of the legislative business of this House and not a matter that could be characterized as dealing with governance of the province, and I've indicated a couple of examples.

Beyond that, it's the government's position that there has been an exhaustive public hearing process involving I believe some 72 hours in half a dozen or 10 different municipalities, involving clause-by-clause consideration, involving an amendment from the opposition party which indeed was approved. Every consideration has been given to this bill. In fact, the minority rights, if you wish, have been well protected by many hours of public hearings, exhaustive debate, and the clause-by-clause amendments, all amendments, being considered. With all of that together, I would submit that this motion is well in order.

The Speaker: To the government House leader, quickly, you cited two precedents that you had earlier. There's some discussion as to whether or not they were preceded by unanimous consents. Do you have the answer to that question?

Hon David Johnson: I don't have that information. I would say, though, that they were motions that were approved by this House.

The Speaker: Okay, I appreciate that. I can pursue --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Just a short one: Since the government House leader has pointed to the opposition amendment which I put, which was carried in the standing committee, a couple of times, I wanted to point out, as did the member for Fort William, that while that was accepted unanimously by the standing committee, the government then said there had to be a reordering of its amendment so that the student representative was not counted in the numbers that were set out in the bill. That was referred to the committee of the whole debate.

The Speaker: I appreciate your input, but I don't see how that is germane.

Mr Wildman: But mine was too, so when he says that the amendment was carried --

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I appreciate that, but with the greatest respect, that really isn't germane. It's an order that we're dealing with here, and what happened at committee isn't germane.

Ms Lankin: I just wanted to stress one point, Mr Speaker. I don't have the Hansard references of the government House leader with respect to those two motions, but I can assure you with full recollection that those came forth as a result of agreement from House leaders' meetings. I do remember the subject content, and that was the way in which those motions came forward with full support from the parties.

The Speaker: I'll just recess for 20 minutes in order to research.

The House recessed from 1546 to 1622.

The Speaker: I thank all members for their submissions on this point of order.

I want to begin by dealing with the argument that the motion is out of order because it denies members the ability to make amendments to Bill 104 at committee of the whole House. In reviewing precedents on this matter, I have found many instances of similar time allocation motions. There were in fact no less than 13 time allocation motions during the 1993-94 session of this House in which no provision was made for any committee of the whole House consideration. Indeed, on July 21, 1992, Speaker Warner ruled in order a time allocation motion which allowed for no third reading debate.

My point is this: Time allocation motions by their very nature sometimes impose severe restrictions on the various stages of consideration of legislation. Sometimes those restrictions include the elimination of the legislative stage altogether. While this may be regarded as extreme by some, it does not make such a motion out of order.

As stated in the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, time allocation motions "may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."

I cannot find, then, that the time allocation motion moved by the government House leader today is out of order on the basis that it does not provide for any time in committee of the whole House. As I said, this is consistent with many similar motions this House has passed previously.

I want to turn to the second argument put forward, which is that the motion is out of order on the basis that it violates standing order 51. I perused with interest the precedent that the member for Algoma referred to. I think that this ruling is of questionable precedential importance and I'm not convinced that, faced with the same situation, I would have made the same ruling. In most cases where a Speaker has ruled a motion out of order on the basis of standing order 51 it has been a substantive motion or resolution that expresses an opinion of the House or is legislation.

On the other hand, I also found numerous examples of motions that order the business of the House and its committees which were subsequently superseded by a new motion. As an example, this House often passes motions that set out the days and the times and the meetings of the standing committees. While passage of such motions results in an order of the House, the House has never felt bound that such an order is final and unchangeable. It is in the nat