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

October 6, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L039a - Tue 6 Oct 1998 / Mar 6 Oct 1998 1

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

BREAST CANCER

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

HURRICANE GEORGES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

JIM BISHOP

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

BREAST CANCER

PUMPKINFEST

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIREARMS CONTROL

CHILD PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

PETITIONS

FATHERS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

RAILWAY TRACKS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HEALTH CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Today the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board announced the closure, potentially, of 15 Hamilton-area schools as a result of this government's funding formula. These decisions are not going to be made based on enrolment, as school boards traditionally have done in the past. These decisions are based on the bizarre formula of square footage that this government has imposed.

What you're now seeing is a situation where many inner-city schools, particularly downtown in my riding of Hamilton East, are going to be closed as a result of Mike Harris's and Dave Johnson's bizarre policies in regard to education that are hurting kids right across this province.

It's going to force the school board to close schools in the inner cities, in the heart of the communities, schools that are the soul of our communities, schools that have been there for 50, 60 and 70 years and have served those communities well, schools that still have many kids in there with wonderful programs. As a result of your cuts, as a result of your formula, these schools are now going to close.

I say very clearly to the Premier and to the Minister of Education: Every single school closure in the city of Hamilton as a result of your formula and your funding policy is going to be on your head and you will pay a price for it. It is irresponsible. It is disgraceful that you're forcing school boards to close schools in the inner cities, in the hearts of our communities in order to continue your absolutely bizarre and ridiculous education policy. You will pay a hell of a political price come election time.

BREAST CANCER

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's important for all of us to be aware that October is Breast Cancer Month. During this month there are many events that are planned across the province to look at the issue of breast cancer, at how we inform women about risk factors, at how we inform them about the breast screening program that's in place, at how we encourage them to face up to their own fear about the possibility of cancer and learn to act in a preventive way for themselves.

Breast cancer affects one out of nine women and that is an extremely important issue for us to keep in mind. Eighty per cent of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer are in fact able to be treated successfully and survive longer than the five-year survival period that tends to be the most common measure.

Very few of us have a situation where we have not had some connection with some loved one, some neighbour, some friend or ourselves who have been affected by breast cancer. It will be important for all of us in our ridings to ensure that we are seen to be supporting the efforts toward better research into breast cancer, better screening for breast cancer and better treatment for breast cancer.

It is a scourge for the women of this province and it is something we must all work together to try and prevent.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I rise in the House today to report that the first Ontario Agriculture Week is officially underway.

In my riding of Perth county, events kicked off on Sunday with a "breakfast in the country" at the home of Bob and Marilyn French. This was followed by harvest day tours which were arranged by Barb Quarry and the Stratford tourism department to offer people the opportunity to see what real farm operations are like.

Here at Queen's Park the Honourable Noble Villeneuve and members of the Legislature were joined by representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Archives of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Royal Bank to assist me in unveiling Ontario Agriculture Week displays.

I would like to thank Ian Wilson and the staff of the Archives of Ontario for their hard work in putting together the display in the rotunda and for providing the historical evidence of the central role of agriculture in the development of this province.

On a historical note, John Deere invented the first chiselled plow in 1837. It's appropriate, therefore, that we find a display of John Deere farm machinery, provided by Nobleton Farm Services, outside Queen's Park. This highly successful exhibition is offering the people of Toronto and visitors to the Legislature a unique opportunity to view the tools used by today's farmers.

It's important to acknowledge the ongoing contribution of Ontario farmers to the quality of life of all our citizens. I invite everyone to partake and to participate in the celebration of agriculture in Ontario.

HURRICANE GEORGES

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Hurricane Georges has brought about one of the worst kinds of devastation in the areas it has visited. Millions of people were forced to flee their homes and take refuge in shelters. This hurricane had a phenomenal economic impact in the areas hit. The residents were forced to run for their lives leaving behind their lifetime savings and investment in property. The savage and brutal Georges has left massive destruction caused by the winds and heavy rains in many areas.

Dr Denzil Douglas, Prime Minister of St Kitts, told me that the islands were severely hit. Over 80% of homes were damaged and 20% of the homes experienced total destruction. The walls of schools and shops crumbled and roofs were blown off the main hospital. Many islands have no electricity at all.

The hurricane killed over 375 people as the storm ripped through the Caribbean. It was reported that over 210 people in the Dominican Republic and 147 people in Haiti died. Also Cuba, Puerto Rico, Antigua and St Kitts and Nevis and southern states have been badly affected, reporting loss of lives. The fatality rate may go up as hundreds of people are still unaccounted for.

The overall damage has been estimated in billions as Hurricane Georges continues to cause chaos and havoc. I appeal to this government and to the citizens of our great province to provide all possible assistance to the victims of this disaster by contacting the Red Cross Society which is coordinating help to the region.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to add my voice to those today who have raised the concern about school closings in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

The front page of the Hamilton Spectator today says: "Schools Slated to Close" and "Up to 15 public schools will be declared surplus." Also this morning, Ray Mulholland, chair of the Hamilton-Wentworth school board, was on 900 CHML, the Roy Green show, talking about the impact on our broader community.

I want to speak about the specific difficulties and, quite frankly, personal disasters this will create in the inner city of Hamilton, the area I represent. The government should know that this is a part of the city that already has an awful lot of people who are facing many personal challenges. Many disabled individuals live there; people who are low-income; a lot of seniors live in this area.

The fact of the matter is that the closure of these inner-city schools affects the quality of life of the children in particular, but of the people who live in those immediate areas. This government's taking of $5 billion to $6 billion out of revenue is $5 billion or $6 billion that should have gone back in to be invested in our school system and our hospitals. Instead you're using that money to buy off your wealthy friends. It's disgusting.

JIM BISHOP

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Morley Kells, the MPP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and myself recently lost a friend and a constituent. It was an untimely death of a remarkable individual, Jim Bishop. Jim Bishop, also known as Mr Lacrosse, died on September 7 as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident north of Bowmanville.

Jim was the founder of the Oshawa Green Gaels, a Junior A lacrosse team. An instructional coach, he led his team to an unprecedented seven straight Minto Cup championships in the 1960s. He was elected as a member of the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame, owner of Lacrosse International, coach of two professional Canadian lacrosse teams and involved with the Whitby Warriors in 1997 for their championship.

Jim was also involved in professional hockey and served as vice-president of the Detroit Red Wings.

Jim Bishop leaves with us a legacy, not just in Durham but across Ontario and indeed Canada. Stan Cockerton, executive director of the Ontario Lacrosse Association, said, "I don't think there's been any person in the past 100 years who's had the kind of impact Jim's had on lacrosse."

Impressive as Jim Bishop's resumé may be as a coach, manager and executive member of many successful teams, Jim had a personal touch and has had many close friendships with his team players as well.

Jim Bishop, coach, teacher and mentor, will be missed. I would especially like to send my condolences to Jim's family: Jim, Colleen, Ann, Craig, Joe and Gael, as well as the grandchildren, Jacob and Jordan. The memory and the spirit of Jim Bishop will live on through all he has touched and all those he has touched in this province.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Speaker, as you're aware, the Harris health services destruction commission has closed one of our hospitals in Kingston. The Hotel Dieu has been serving Kingston and area residents for 153 years. Make no mistake, it's Mike Harris who told the sisters that their services were no longer required. Where are the patients served by the sisters to go?

To top it off, our community care access centre has now cut 2,000 patients from homemaking services because of lack of adequate funding. How are the elderly, the handicapped and the early discharged patients from hospitals to receive the home care assistance they need?

Last Thursday in this House we saw the Minister of Health and the entire Tory caucus vote against our private member's resolution that would ensure adequate funding for hospitals and ensure that adequate community resources are in place for those who need care in communities.

How does this government justify underfunding our community access centre and closing our hospitals at the same time? Some $52 million in health care has been taken out of our area and only $36 million reinvested, and no new dollars for home care services.

The residents of Kingston and area know the value of the services provided by the sisters. Over 60,000 people in Kingston have signed petitions to tell the Premier and his destruction commission to leave our hospitals alone. Here are over 60,000 signatures for the Minister of Health. Stop taking money away from health care in Kingston and Ontario.

BREAST CANCER

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): October is Breast Cancer Month. More and more women are now being diagnosed with breast cancer every year; in fact, it's now up to one out of nine. I expect every member in this House has had a friend, a sister, a mother, a wife, a cousin diagnosed with this terrible disease.

In my riding of Riverdale a self-help centre for women, called Willow, is an amazing organization which reaches out and helps women and their families across the province deal with this once the woman has been diagnosed. Volunteers, women who are survivors of breast cancer, come in to help out and talk to newly diagnosed women on the phone.

Today I want to urge the federal Minister of Health, Allan Rock, to reconsider his answer of no to Willow for funding. The federal Liberal government set aside millions of dollars for cancer research and cancer care and denied Willow, which is a wonderful centre - and I think everybody here knows about it.

I know, Mr Speaker, that you were part of a table sponsored at the Willow fundraising dinner. It's a wonderful centre that is becoming world-renowned, and the federal Liberal government said no to funding. I'm sure every member will join with me today in urging the federal government to reconsider.

PUMPKINFEST

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): It gives me great pleasure today to share with my colleagues an outstanding event which I attended in the riding of Bruce over the past weekend.

The 12th annual Pumpkinfest was held in the town of Port Elgin. This is a world championship event which involves a weigh-off competition for the heaviest pumpkin.

This year the prize-winning pumpkin weighed in at 1,092 pounds, a world record. It was grown by Gary Burke, of Simcoe, Ontario, who has taken home over $10,000 in prize money. Weighing in at a close second was a 1,010-pounder grown by Bob and Elaine MacKenzie, of Tiverton, Ontario.

Pumpkinfest is a community-wide event featuring activities for the whole family. These include an enormous antique car show, artists' village and craft show, farm machinery show, dances and concerts. Some of the more unique events are seed-spitting contests, underwater pumpkin carving and a giant vegetable weigh-off competition.

Port Elgin, a town of 7,000 people on the shores of Lake Huron, attracted over 50,000 people to Pumpkinfest.

Special recognition should be given to Cathy Mills, Pumpkinfest chairperson, and Jan Bonhomme, Pumpkinfest coordinator, as well as the hundreds of volunteers, for the outstanding contribution they have made to make this event possible. Many businesses and organizations also provided donations of time, equipment and money.

I congratulate the people of Port Elgin on an extremely successful 12th annual Pumpkinfest. It was a pleasure to attend and take

part in a community festival which has grown to become one of the most popular in southwestern Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGAL AID SERVICES ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES SERVICES D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

Mr Harnick moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 68,

An Act to incorporate Legal Aid Ontario and to create the framework for the provision of legal aid services in Ontario, to amend the Legal Aid Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 68, Loi constituant en personne morale Aide juridique Ontario, établissant le cadre de la prestation des services d'aide juridique en Ontario, modifiant la

Loi sur l'aide juridique et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois.

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

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The Legal Aid Services Act proposes a new organization, Legal Aid Ontario, to deliver legal aid services.

This organization will develop new and innovative ways to better provide legal aid services, will operate independently from government and will be clearly accountable for the use of public funds.

The act is our next step in building on Professor John McCamus's review of the province's legal aid system which set out the blueprint for the creation of a new model that would more effectively respond to the needs of Ontarians.

I'd like to thank Professor McCamus, who is in the gallery today, and his committee for their hard work, and I would also like to thank Nancy Austin of the Ministry of the Attorney General for her hard work and dedication in implementing this project.

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER AND LOBBYISTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 CONCERNANT LE COMMISSAIRE À L'INTÉGRITÉ ET LES LOBBYISTES

Mr Hodgson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyist Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.

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

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): This government made a commitment to introduce legislation that would make lobbying activities more transparent and accountable to the public. We are moving forward on that promise today. We are introducing legislation that will require lobbyists to register their identity, the names of their clients and to declare their lobbying activities on a government registry. This registry will be accessible to the public. A Web site will be created to allow on-line registration by lobbyists and viewing by the public.

Not only are we the first Ontario government to take this initiative, we are the first provincial government in Canada to do so.

This legislation supports our commitment to ensure government activities are conducted openly, fairly and transparently while protecting the government from undue influence. Lobbying is part of the government process. This legislation assures the public interest -

The Speaker: I think you're into debate now. I think we've got a pretty good idea of what the bill is going to do.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for unanimous consent to allow for a response to the minister's statement on this bill.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have a response to the introduction of the bill? Agreed? No.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(g), requirement for notice be waived with respect to private member's ballot item number 27.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I rise today to speak about an opportunity to create jobs, about an opportunity to help young people to get a job, an opportunity to allow our businesses to create more jobs and an opportunity to help our economy keep the jobs that we already enjoy.

Today I want to address a situation that I believe is detrimental to these opportunities for Ontario workers and for our small business owners in particular. For too long the federal Liberal government has been using employment insurance to siphon money away from Ontario workers and businesses and use it for purposes other than for which it was intended.

My colleagues and I have serious concerns about reports that the federal government is now considering legislation to expand and legalize this practice. Reportedly Prime Minister Chrétien, Finance Minister Paul Martin and the rest of the federal Liberal cabinet are considering ways to legalize the use of the employment insurance surplus, a surplus built solely from contributions made by hard-working women and men, and to use those funds for their own political purposes.

We've all heard about their grand plans. While we applaud Mr Chrétien and Mr Martin for finally agreeing with our government's fundamental belief that tax cuts are imperative to the continuing growth of our economy, we strongly object to any suggestion that the federal government use money which is not rightly theirs for any purpose other than providing benefits for workers, for the unemployed, for increasing those benefits or for increasing opportunities for work or training, or returning the money through employment insurance payroll tax cuts to the workers who made in the contributions in the first place.

This is not only fair to the workers but it makes good economic sense. It will create new jobs and it will help keep the jobs that Ontarians already have. The surplus of employment insurance funds rightly belongs to the workers of this country who paid into it, far in excess of what was needed.

Ontarians annually contribute $4.5 billion more to the employment insurance account than is actually spent on employment insurance. In 1997, Ontarians paid a total of about $8 billion in premium taxes but got back less than $3.5 billion in benefits. In fact since 1994, Ontario workers and businesses have paid for about two thirds of the accumulated $19-billion surplus.

All premiers and territorial leaders agreed at their meeting this summer that EI premiums should be reduced for all workers and eliminated entirely for young Canadians. Liberal premiers, NDP premiers and Conservative premiers all agreed. This move could create as many as 200,000 new jobs across the country. A great many of these jobs would be created here in Ontario, the industrial heartland of this nation.

Ontario has consistently pushed for a reduction in premiums to $2.20 per $100 of insurable earnings from the current $2.70, back, I might add, to the level they were at before the federal Liberals massively hiked these premium taxes on our workers.

The most respected actuaries have told us that this would be quite enough to keep the fund solvent through the ups and downs of the employment cycle. In fact, according to recent reports, the employment insurance chief actuary's report dated September 10 indicates the employment insurance account will have a surplus of $7.1 billion for 1998 alone. This means that premium rates could have been set at $1.81 in 1998, one third lower than the actual level of $2.70, and the account would still run on a break-even basis this year.

Even the employment insurance chief actuary has been quoted recently as saying that a steady premium rate between $1.90 and $2.10 would be sustainable even in the event of an economic downturn.

The provinces have moreover asked that the EI account be removed from Ottawa's budgetary books and externally managed in the same manner as the Canada pension plan. Today I understand all four opposition parties at the federal level endorse a similar plan. Think about that: the Reform Party united with the NDP and the other two parties nationally, calling on the government to do exactly this. Hopefully, we might be able to have the same three-party unanimity here.

The provinces have moreover asked - sorry, I said that. I was pretty excited about all four parties agreeing.

Clearly, such action would improve the fiscal integrity of the program. On September 25 my colleague the Minister of Finance, Ernie Eves, wrote Paul Martin to convey the province's most serious concern about the federal plan to take over the EI account. His request was simple: He urged Mr Martin to have any plan to change the administrative responsibility for the EI account on the agenda of the upcoming federal-provincial finance ministers' meeting on October 22 in Winnipeg. This must be done. On behalf of Ontario workers, I've also written to the Prime Minister today to make the same request.

Our provincial income tax cut was the single-largest job-creating stimulus by any government in the history of this country. Tax cuts create jobs. The Ontario economy has created over 300,000 jobs since 1995. On behalf of those still unemployed in Ontario and those worried about keeping their jobs, I urge the federal government to reduce employment insurance premiums, and eliminate them entirely for young Canadians.

Today I am asking all members of this House who want to see more jobs made available to Ontario workers to speak up. I'm asking them to tell the Liberal government and all 101 federal Liberal MPs in Ontario that they must resist this urge to take what is not theirs from the workers of this province. We must urge them in the strongest possible terms to follow the advice of the chief actuary and lower premiums. We must band together and demand that Ottawa make the employment insurance fund more accountable to the workers and the employers who pay into it.

Let us demand premiums be realistically linked to the cost of providing benefits and training programs to Canadian workers, as they would be in a genuine insurance scheme.

On behalf of those who work in this province, all those who pay into the employment insurance program, together I believe we must ask this to be done.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Responses?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the Premier's -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Reset the clock. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to respond to the Premier's comments on employment. I think the people of Ontario appreciate the challenge we face on the employment front. I just received, September 21, from the Ministry of Finance the latest employment numbers. It says, Premier, as you know, that Ontario's employment declined in August; Ontario lost 19,900 full-time jobs in the month of August; Ontario since April has lost 22,000 jobs; the rest of Canada has gained 42,000 jobs.

While I would like to be more optimistic on the employment front, for the last four to five months Ontario's employment has been extremely weak. In fact, I remember well the Common Sense Revolution where Mike Harris said, and this was categorical, this was not -

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): Does it have anything to do with EI premiums?

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: This plan - well, they want to talk about jobs but they don't want to hear the numbers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Hold on. Government members -

Hon Mr Eves : You agree the workers should be ripped off, do you?

The Speaker: Would the Minister of Finance come to order. Minister of Finance and members of the government, I think they were reasonably quiet while the Premier gave his speech. I'm asking the same from the government members as well.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I say to the member for York-Mackenzie, I don't tell you how to answer the questions; I'm not going to tell him how to ask them etc. So they can respond to whatever they choose to respond to.

Mr Phillips: We're talking about employment and it was you, Premier, who said in your own Common Sense Revolution, "This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs over the next five years," and it's you who put out this document - this is from your own Minister of Finance - that says we have lost almost 20,000 jobs in the month of August. So I say we do have an employment problem in Ontario.

Your comments were about youth. It was you, Premier - and this is your own document. Your tax cut gave a tax break worth $500 million to people in this province who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. The people in Ontario who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year got $500 million of tax break. I say to the young people who are watching you about jobs, why was that possible, how is it possible? You know you have been facing over the last three years a 60% increase in your tuition fees, so we're here today to talk about young people and jobs.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: What have you done? You have taken their tuition fees up 60%; in the month of August we have lost 19,900 jobs. You may not want to hear this, and I think the public will understand that the Conservatives are barracking, but what has happened -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: The thrust of the Premier's comments were around young people and employment for young people. I want to set the stage to say that, Premier, you now are I think 128,000 jobs short of your target. You have taken tuition fees up 60% for young people. You have given a tax break to people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, which represents a $500-million tax break

Yes, put it on the agenda. Discuss this federally. Absolutely do that. That's great. But I would say we have a lot to do in these four walls. We have a lot to do to point out to the people of Ontario what is happening in employment and how you have been treating young people, the things you have 100% control over. You have taken tuition fees up 60%. You have given the people in Ontario making more than a quarter of a million dollars a tax break that is worth $500 million. You promised in the Common Sense Revolution, with your picture on the front - you never said, "We think that this plan will create a climate where 725,000 jobs are created." You said, "This plan will create 725,000 jobs."

I say to the people of Ontario that we now are seeing an enormous softness in job creation in the province, and so I understand the Premier now wanting to deflect the criticism.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Industry doesn't want to hear this either, but he's going to have to hear it, because the people of Ontario are seeing it. The Premier now wants to deflect the problem somewhere else. But, Premier, it is you who will be held accountable for employment in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll warn the Minister of Finance to come to order as well. I'm not warning you again; if I do, I'll name you.

Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I repeat, in the Premier's statement we have absolutely no difficulty. Get it on the agenda and discuss it federally. But let's get on the agenda here in Ontario the other issues, your tuition fees that are costing our young people opportunity and a future, your tax break which is giving a $500-million tax break to those who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars, and the employment numbers that now show that in the last five months the rest of Canada has gained 42,000 jobs and Ontario has lost 22,000 jobs. Let's also have that debate here in this Legislature.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I'm pleased to be able to say a few words about this very important issue today. You'll know, Speaker, that we wanted to get unanimous consent so we could talk about this important issue last week. Certain members of the Legislature turned us down on that unanimous consent, to I'm pleased to be able to speak about it today.

This is an incredibly important issue for people in Ontario and for people across Canada. The reality is that there are some 800,000 people now in Canada who are unemployed, who are out of work, yet are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. They are not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because the current Liberal government in Ottawa changed the unemployment insurance legislation to take those benefits away from them.

People who are vulnerable, people who are poor, people who have lost their jobs have had money taken out of their pockets through the employment insurance fund, and then the current Liberal government has said to them: "You're not eligible for income supplements to tide you over. You're not eligible for job relocation. You're not eligible for some of the training funds that are part of this."

This is a terrible situation, that so many people in this province and so many people in this country are unemployed and not only has the federal government abandoned them but they're going to take their money and use it to finance an income tax scheme that I am sure at the end of the day will benefit those at the top of the income ladder far more than anyone else. It is a terrible injustice.

I want to be very clear on what I believe needs to happen here. First of all, those people who have been unjustly deprived of unemployment insurance benefits must have those benefits restored. It is only just and it is only fair. Second of all, as I read a lot of the current economic commentary, the World Bank released a report just two days ago which says that the key to this economy, the key to people being able to take

part in this economy, is education and training. They implore all countries in the world, all jurisdictions in the world, to invest more in education and training. Those UI funds must be used to re-equip workers so they can re-enter the workforce, not fund an income tax scheme that at the end of the day only puts more money in the pockets of people who already have a lot of money.

I couldn't help but notice the spokesperson for the Liberal Party condemning the Harris income tax scheme. I want to be clear that I do not approve in any way of the Harris income tax scheme, because at the end of the day people in Ontario are losing health care, losing education opportunities and their property taxes are being forced up in order that the wealthiest people in this province can receive the benefits of an income tax scheme.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Just like they did under your government. Don't start with that. Remember the winter of 93, Howie? See what you did to our hospitals in 93.

Mr Hampton: Sorry, Speaker. Some of the Liberals appear to be upset here.

Mrs Pupatello: You're no better than they are.

The Speaker: Windsor-Sandwich, come to order. I'm not going to warn you.

Mr Hampton: The problem the Liberal Party has is that they want to condemn the Harris income tax scheme, but they admit when you push them that they would institutionalize and they would cement that income tax scheme, that they would continue to take money out of health care and education to finance that income tax scheme. Now we have the federal Liberal government saying that they want to do the same thing, only they want to take money out of the pockets of the unemployed to finance an income tax scheme.

What is evident here is that neither the Harris government in Ontario nor the federal Liberal government in Ottawa has an employment strategy. Neither government has a strategy to take unemployed workers and give them the training they need to put them back to work.

On a point of order, Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario formally opposes any move by the federal Liberal government to spend the employment insurance surplus, the vast majority of which comes from Ontario workers and employers, on federal income tax cuts.

I seek unanimous consent for that motion so we can send that motion to Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada.

The Speaker: Let me be clear so that the House understands: The leader of the third party is asking for unanimous consent to move that motion. Agreed? No.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Dominic Agostino said no.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He's not in his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I heard a no. That's all that matters.

Mr Christopherson: Speaker, a point of order.

The Speaker: First I just want to tell the members that I heard a no. I don't necessarily even know where it came from, but I know for certain that it didn't come from the gallery.

Member for Hamilton Centre, now your point of order.

Mr Christopherson: Speaker, the no came from the member for Hamilton East, but he's not in his seat. I'd like to know whether you formally recognize that.

The Speaker: The fact is that it just doesn't matter. I heard a no.

It's now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to give you an opportunity today to explain your position to this House on gun control. We both know that the majority of Ontarians support gun control, and so do I. We favour the registration of all guns. If you live in Ontario and you own a gun, I want that gun registered and I want the police to know about it. The police think this is a good idea and so do the victim support groups, including CAVEAT, chaired by Priscilla de Villiers. What I want to know from you today is your position on the registration of guns by all Ontarians who happen to own one in this province, a move supported by the police.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Solicitor General has spoken out on behalf of our party and our caucus and I refer it to him.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Come on, Premier, answer the question.

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

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This government does support gun control, real and meaningful and effective gun control. The federal government's legislation as it relates to registration of long guns in our view is in no way, shape or form an effective way of gun control. We've indicated and the Court of Appeal in Alberta has indicated clearly with a division that there are strong concerns with respect to the intervention of the federal government in provincial jurisdictions. That's one element of this.

The other concern from our perspective is the fact that we're dealing with a situation related to scarce resources in the public safety sector across this country. We believe you should be setting priorities and funding programs that are going to have the most impact on fighting crime in our country and getting guns off our streets and out of our neighbourhoods. If you use the example of the program this government has instituted, where we're spending $150 million over five years to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets of Ontario, that's what we're doing with taxpayers' dollars.

Mr McGuinty: I can understand why the Premier ducked the question and I can understand why the minister is trying to complicate a very straightforward issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: The issue here is very straightforward. Either you believe that if you own a gun in the province of Ontario it ought to be registered and the police put on notice of that fact, or you don't. The police happen to believe it's a good idea. They feel it's going to make our province safer. They feel it's important for them to know when they approach a certain house that there's a gun located inside that house. I think it's a good idea for guns in Ontario to be registered so our police are made aware of that fact. All I want to know from you is, do you think it's a good idea?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've indicated earlier that the idea of registration in and of itself may not necessarily be bad. There are two elements to this. This is a decision and a responsibility that should be left in the hands of provincial governments and territorial governments, not the federal government. It's an additional intrusion.

The other element is priorities and where you spend your money in a most effective way in terms of fighting crime across this country and getting weapons off our streets. We have a very serious problem with weapons being smuggled into this country. We have problems in terms of handguns, which are already required to be registered under the Criminal Code. This is not going to in any way have an impact on getting guns out of the hands of criminals. Criminals simply will not register their weapons; that's a proven fact.

The other reality in this is that the federal government has up to this point in time spent $134 million on this program and they have not registered one single gun.

Mr McGuinty: Let me tell you how out of sync you are with Ontarians on this issue. Not only do you not appreciate how important it is to them to have every, single gun in this province registered, but where do you come out with this crazy idea of deciding that it's in the interests of our children to give them the right to bear arms? It's one thing to give them computers, it's another thing to give them school books, and in many, many cases it would be very important that we put food into their hands, but where do you come up with this hare-brained scheme to put guns in the hands of 12-year-olds? Ontarians want to know that.

I've been to the 905 area of this province and they're very concerned about this plan on your part -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Can I have some order, please. I appreciate the fact that you all want to answer, but the Solicitor General will answer the question.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, quite simply tell me: Why is it in the interests of children in Ontario that they be given the right to carry a gun and to shoot it?

Hon Mr Runciman: A couple of things: You talk about being out of sync. This is a leader who would not even get up and stand today with respect to the employment insurance fund.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Runciman: The member raised C-68 and then talks about 12-year-olds. The reality is that this is a component of C-68, allowing 12-year-olds to discharge weapons. The Ontario government has responded in a very appropriate way by ensuring that they take the appropriate hunter safety courses. They have to pass those. They have to have an adult with them who has to be at arm's length and they share a long gun. Ontario is clearly doing what is appropriate to deal with the federal legislation, Bill C-68.

In respect to the other matter, the $134 million that has been spent so far, if we had that money in Ontario - as I indicated earlier, we're spending $150 million to put 1,000 new police officers on the streets of this province - we could double that. Ask the leader of the Liberal Party if Ontario residents would rather have another 2,000 police officers out on their streets versus registration which will have no impact whatsoever on crime in this country.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I want to talk to you today about seven-year-old Randal Dooley. Young Randal's body was found a little over a week ago, shortly after he died. An autopsy showed he died of head wounds and there were signs of extensive earlier injuries. It was obvious that he had been badly beaten and abused.

For quite some time now you've been promising tough legislation to help prevent this sort of thing from happening again. I've been asking you for that legislation for over a year now. Everyone in this House, I am convinced, would support that kind of legislation. When are we going to see that legislation, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I would like to remind the leader that we all share a great deal of sympathy and concern when incidents like this happen. Clearly what happened, while I can't talk to the individual case, I don't think is anything that would be within the legislation; it would be contra to the legislation. So passing new legislation that could be broken would not, in my view, have prevented this situation to which the member refers.

As far as taking steps to reinforce the children's aid societies, we have taken a lot of measures already. In addition, as you know, we are planning on new legislation to give them even more support in general terms, but we've had more funding for children's aid societies, we've had a standardized approach to risk assessment, we've provided more training for child care workers -

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. Do you understand that we have it within our means to provide at least some kind of help to children who are growing up at risk in Ontario? We can do that in this Legislature. Your minister has been talking about that kind of legislation for a long time now.

I put forward a plan. It's called First Steps. There are 41 substantive recommendations in here. It's based on coroner's inquests. It's based on the child mortality task force. Imagine. We had a task force in Ontario to look into why our kids were being killed. The ideas are here. We have the recommendations. The juries are in.

My question again is, when are we going to see the legislation?

Hon Mr Harris: If you're talking now about legislation in response to the inquests, that legislation has been committed to by the minister. We have been consulting, as you are probably very much aware. In fact, even though there are incidents which we all regret and wish would not have happened, this legislation, when it comes in I believe this fall, will be the first legislation brought in in 10 years. You did nothing for five years; the New Democratic Party did not bring in any strengthening in five years.

This government has made a commitment to bring in new legislation and has made a commitment to consult on it. The minister has been doing that, and as soon as that is completed and the legislation ready, we would expect it in this House this fall.

Mr McGuinty: I have raised these kinds of issues and these kinds of horrific stories time and time again. Here are some of the names: Kasandra Shepherd, Shanay Johnson, Johnny James, Tiffani Colville, Paolo Trotta, Sarah Podniewicz, and now Randal Dooley, all dead children, all died in Ontario, all were the subject of abuse and/or neglect.

I'm going to put an offer on the table here. I will do whatever it takes to help facilitate the passage of legislation to protect our children in this province. I'm asking you to make sure we can pass it completely - first, second and third reading - prior to the end of this fall session. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the offer. If that stands with all members of the Legislature when the legislation is introduced this fall, there's no reason why it could not pass first, second and third reading. I appreciate your blind confidence in us, without having seen the legislation that you'll be 100% supportive, something that actually is the first good judgment I've ever heard come from you in your term as leader of the party. You should have confidence that this party that has massively -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Essex South, come to order.

Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: You have a right to have confidence in this party above any other party over the last 15 years in Ontario. This is the party that has given an additional $170 million in the last budget, thanks to the Minister of Finance, towards increasing the number of child protection staff, providing better training for front-line workers, revitalizing foster care. This is the party that committed to bring in new legislation and has been consulting on that. In addition to your offer today of first, second and third reading before Christmas, which I accept very much, I also want to ask you to consider and uphold your commitment in First Steps, the introductory letter -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to introduce the member-elect for the riding of Nickel Belt, Mr Blain Morin, who's here in the gallery today.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. After the first year of your government's cuts to hospitals, Ontario hospitals were left with deficits -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Sudbury, come to order.

Mr Hampton: After the first year of your government's cuts to hospitals, hospitals in this province were left with deficits of $150 million. As you've continued to cut hospital budgets, hospitals have been forced to borrow from the banks in order to provide a level of service for their communities. This means that health care dollars that are supposed to be used to hire nurses and keep emergency rooms open are being used to pay financing charges and interest charges to banks, are being used to finance your income tax scheme.

The exact number for this year's hospital debt will depend upon the funding you provide those hospitals. What's your answer? Are you going to provide hospitals with enough money so they don't have to go deeper into debt to finance your income tax scheme?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): First of all, we need to make it absolutely clear that there have been no reductions whatsoever to the hospital base funding allocations this year. In fact, we have not shifted any money to pay for any tax cuts from health. When you left office in 1995, the health budget stood at $17.4 billion. Today we are spending on health services for the people in this province at least $18.6 billion, and we are doing so in a way that we are strengthening the services that are available. We are providing a continuum of care.

We are restructuring our system in order that we can respond to the changing needs of our population and provide the services as close to the homes of people as possible at every stage of their life.

Mr Hampton: The minister says she's not cutting hospital budgets this year. What she meant to say was that she didn't announce that she's cutting their budgets. In fact, you're cutting their budgets through the back door. You're forcing them to pay internally for increases in nurses' wages, increases that are long overdue. You're forcing them to absorb OHIP technical fees.

What it amounts to is this: You've cut hospital budgets by over $1 billion. To compensate, they're having to do a number of things: They're having to go to the bank and borrow money, which is wrong; they're having to push patients out the door quicker and sicker, which is wrong; they're having to cut services, which is wrong; and they're having to impose all kinds of user fees, which is wrong - all imposed by your government. For example, in Sault Ste Marie the two hospitals have been cut a total of $6.4 million over the first two years of your government. This year they'll have a deficit of $2.5 million because of other cuts they're absorbing.

Minister, are you going to continue to put our hospitals between a rock and a hard place while you finance your income tax scheme?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I can tell the leader of the third party what we're not prepared to do, and I read from the Ottawa Citizen of March 19, 1994 - I believe that's during the time you were in office - "As financially squeezed hospitals search for ways to slash costs, patients are being moved through faster. Seniors who undergo total hip replacements who once spent 10 days in hospital now go home in three. Heart patients are being discharged after five days instead of nine." This is in financially squeezed hospitals.

Then it goes on to say in the Toronto Star in 1991: "Toronto East General Hospital cut 70 beds" today, "including 19...children's...and 17 maternity...to help wipe out a projected $4.3-million deficit. As well" - look at this - "83 nurses will lose their jobs by fall."

I can assure the people in this province that what we are doing is ensuring that we have a health system of which we can all be proud -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I want to remind you of a situation in Sault Ste Marie where a patient lost his right thumb. He wrote a letter to you about that. In his letter he points out that this man and his doctor believe that if it hadn't been for an eight-hour wait for the operating room, he would not have lost his right thumb.

What do you have to say about what is happening with these kinds of situations in Sault Ste Marie and in other hospitals across the province, where you continue to cut hospital budgets in order to finance your income tax scheme, where you continue to take money away from patients, away from nurses in order to finance your income tax scheme? You've taken $1 billion out of hospital budgets already. What do you say to this man in Sault Ste Marie? What do you say to those hospitals? Are you going to force them further into debt this year in order to finance your income tax scheme?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm pleased to say that as a result of the income tax reduction, actually revenues are up in this province and we can provide more services to people. That's what has enabled us to continue to increase the spending on health care each year.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My second question is for the Minister of Education. I want to send over to the Minister of Education this map and a list of schools that he wants to close across the province.

The minister pretends that he's not doing this. He pretends that the boards of education have free choice. He conveniently confuses the fact, though, that boards of education will not get money to fund new accommodation unless they close schools that have any surplus space. It's your funding formula that is forcing these boards to close schools.

Minister, what you don't seem to realize is that you're cutting the heart out of a number of these communities. You are literally cutting the heart out of them because when the community school goes, the community starts to deteriorate as well.

This is the map that you've got, Minister, and it shows the number of locations across southern Ontario where schools are going to be forced to close because of your funding formula.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I guess the member opposite could show a map of the 106 schools that were closed by school boards when the NDP was in power between 1990 and 1995. These are decisions made by school boards. They were made by school boards when the Liberals were in power, made by school boards when the NDP was in power, made by school boards when we are in power. There are shifts in population, shifts in enrolment; schools are opened, schools are closed. In the month of September, 20 schools were opened in Ontario, and there'll be another five schools opened over the next month or two.

The funding formula that we have brought forward - some $800 million in school construction within the next year, $1.5 billion of school construction over the next three years - will result in almost 200 new schools in Ontario where they're needed, supporting some 120,000 students where those students need the support.

Mr Hampton: The minister conveniently tries to leave out two facts: First, the financing of the schools that you're now opening was approved under the Bob Rae government. You have not approved the financing of one new school in this province. Second, what you fail to point out is, yes, we have had school closures in this province before, but those schools have closed when the enrolment has dropped so low that a local decision has been made that we should not continue to have this school. What you're doing is taking so much money out of the school system that schools will be forced to close not because of enrolment but because you've taken the money.

Minister, these are just some of the schools across southern Ontario: 200 here in Toronto, a number in Kitchener and Waterloo, a number in Hamilton, a number in the Niagara Peninsula. The point is you are taking a vital community service out of the community. Don't you recognize this is wrong? Don't you recognize how destructive -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The leader of the third party doesn't have a very high degree of confidence in parents and school boards. Parents and school boards, the communities and the school boards, are making these decisions. Here in the city of Toronto there are about 80 schools which are no longer used for public purposes. Some of them are empty; some are used for administration; some are used for storage; some have been leased to third parties for other use.

The taxpayer might consider that a better use could be made of those 80 properties that are no longer used for public school purposes. These are the kinds of decisions that school boards, in conjunction with their communities, with their parents, are making across Ontario as they did when the NDP was in power, as they did when the Liberals were in power.

Mr Hampton: This is what's happening. This is creating such a crisis that, for example, here in the city of Toronto it is not just the board of education, it is also the city council that is looking at this issue. What they've done wisely over the years is they have put either adjacent to or into those schools swimming pools, athletic facilities, day care centres and a host of other community services which means that the school truly is the focal point of the community. In Kitchener the Courtland Avenue senior school is on the auction block. It is a downtown school that not only houses more than 300 students but is used seven days a week by a wide variety of community groups.

Minister, it's you and your government funding formula that is going to tear the heart out of these communities because those boards know that you're forcing them to close those schools. If they don't close those schools, you will not give them any of the monies they may need to build school accommodation elsewhere in their district. You're tearing the heart out of schools to finance your income tax scheme. Minister, will you reconsider this? Will you put the heart back into our community?

Hon Mr Johnson: Of course that's absolute nonsense. I encourage municipalities to be involved. If municipalities have community centres, if there are meeting rooms, if there is playground equipment or whatever, I encourage municipalities. Having come from the municipal scene, I know those kinds of activities and functions are important to municipalities, and municipalities should be involved and they should make decisions which reflect the needs of their citizens.

But I say to the leader of the third party that the Ministry of Education needs to focus the monies it has to educate the students in the classroom, and that's exactly what this government has done: more monies for teachers, more monies for textbooks, more monies for paraprofessionals and librarians and guidance teachers. That's what this government has put the priority on, priority on the classroom to improve the quality of education in Ontario.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You are being completely irresponsible in trying to deny that it is your funding cuts that are forcing the closure of schools, and you are being irresponsible as a government in not recognizing and dealing with the impact those school closures will have on communities.

Minister, you cut the funding to maintain what you called extra space on September 1 of this year. The school boards wrote to you. They said, "Please maintain our funding until we can actually close the schools that you're insisting that we close," and you said no. So you cut their funding for maintaining what you called extra spaces on September 1 of this year. You cut $57 million out of the budget of the Toronto board, and now Toronto council is worried about the closure of as many as 200 schools.

Up in Huron and Perth counties you cut at least $2 million out of their budget, and now the Avon Maitland board is facing the closure of as many as 14 schools. If you aren't forcing the closure of schools, why did you cut the maintenance budgets of those boards on September 1?

Hon David Johnson: There was an October Toronto Star

article that has to do, actually, with the Timiskaming Board of Education. The Timiskaming board has had to close a high school and it blames the problem on lack of provincial funding from the education ministry. The Toronto Star

article is dated October 14, 1988. It said they had no alternative but to close because the Ministry of Education didn't give enough money.

These are the kinds of decisions that boards have had to make down through the years. Boards have made these decisions under the Liberal government, boards have made these decisions under the NDP government. Take the Toronto Board of Education as an example. There will be more money spent in the Toronto Board of Education this year than last year in the Toronto Board of Education. Now, the responsibility is for the Toronto board to take that money and pay for the best possible education for the students in the Toronto system.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Minister, your one-size-fits-all approach to education is creating chaos that verges on an emergency in rural Ontario as well. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture understands that your funding formula is driving school closures and ripping the heart out of rural communities. They are deeply concerned. They are working on a rural school policy. Will you listen to the OFA? Will you listen to the parents and the students of rural Ontario who demand that you fix your flawed funding formula immediately?

Hon David Johnson: You bet we listen to the parents, and I'll tell you what the parents and the teachers and the students want in the education system in Ontario. They want a higher quality, they want more discipline in the education system, and we're providing that higher quality through a new curriculum, through province-wide testing, through a standardized report card, through a cap on the average class size, through more instructional days for students so our students have a fair comparison with students from other provinces.

And, I might say, we have more than doubled the amount of operation and maintenance monies for small schools in Ontario; a $90-million commitment for remote and rural schools, more than double under the previous GLGs.

This is how we're focusing the monies, where they're needed, particularly into the classroom to improve the quality of education.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Premier. I want to raise with you a very important date: September 6, 1995. I think you should remember it well. It is the date upon which an innocent person was killed in this province. That's the day that Dudley George was shot and killed. He became the first aboriginal person this century to be killed in a land rights dispute in Canada.

Premier, we have a situation now where three years has gone by and your government has not called an inquiry into this event, despite our repeated calls.

The family of Dudley George and the community deserve to know what the events were that led to the death of this innocent man, how this could have been prevented. Premier, will you call this inquiry now?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I know the Attorney General -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The government has been clear and consistent that it will not consider other options until all matters before the courts have been resolved. It would not be appropriate to launch a public inquiry while there are outstanding legal matters before the courts.

Mr Hampton: We've heard this excuse before, and these excuses are nothing but stonewalling.

I've got a report here from a very well respected law professor at the University of Toronto, Professor Patrick Macklem. He has looked at every single excuse, Premier, that you and your government have tried to use for not calling an inquiry, every single legal barrier you have tried to hide behind, and he says this: There is no legal barrier or logical reason why you cannot call a public inquiry.

Premier, you know that evidence has already been destroyed in the Ministry of the Solicitor General, evidence that would have been quite relevant to this inquiry.

I want to read further from this report. It says, "Given that both law and policy fully support the establishment of a public inquiry, the government of Ontario's continued refusal to hold an inquiry can only be explained in terms of politically motivated unwillingness."

The question is, why haven't you called an inquiry? There's no legal reason why. Call an inquiry today.

Hon Mr Harnick: As I indicated, there are currently two criminal appeals and three civil actions before the courts with respect to these matters. The government has been clear and consistent. It will only consider any options after all matters before the courts have been completed.

I've discussed this with senior officials. I've been advised it would be inappropriate to call a public inquiry at this time.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last year this House focused considerable attention on the new city of Toronto. The government recognized that the overlap and duplication between Metropolitan Toronto and the area municipalities within it was increasingly not serving the taxpayers as effectively and efficiently as it could and should and that change was required and in fact was probably long overdue.

The new city of Toronto has now been in place for about nine months, and municipal government in Toronto is being streamlined, I think, better to serve all Torontonians. Minister, could you rise today and inform this House on the state of affairs of the new city of Toronto?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for High Park-Swansea for that very excellent question. I can tell the member that the new city is working very well. By the way, they're not my words; that's a quote from the member for Fort York, as a matter of fact, at our estimates session the other day. I would like to point out that the member for Fort York is not the only person to think the new city is working well, and I'd also like to quote Mayor Lastman who recently told some of his neighbouring municipalities:

"It works and it works well. The province kept saying this, but I wasn't listening. I just wanted to keep my little turf. And I was wrong. I was wrong because this is going to work and it's going to work better and we're going to be able to offer better services as well."

We said that the Metro Toronto seven local governments becoming a single unified city would provide better services at lower cost to the taxpayers of the city of Toronto, and it has.

Mr Shea: I must say I am delighted -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Supplementary.

Mr Shea: I am delighted that the member for St Catharines is awake and is so exercised with my question. Let me continue because I want to go on to some more subtle nuances of that theme.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Shea: The unification of the city of Toronto is a large undertaking which requires time and energy. I think all of us acknowledge that blending seven departments into one is not easy, whether it's public works, purchasing or planning. It's essential that appropriate consideration and time be given to make that plan work, but while restructuring ultimately results in more efficient and cost-effective government, I think you'll agree that there are some short-term costs associated with making the necessary changes.

Minister, will you rise in the House today and tell us what the government has done to recognize the transition challenges and what support it has given to the implementation of the new city of Toronto?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I thank the member for High Park-Swansea for that very excellent question. We indicated at the time we introduced the legislation to form the new unified city of Toronto that there should be savings in the order of perhaps $300 million a year by getting rid of the overlap and duplication that existed in having seven governments operate in this one single area.

We also recognize that there are some costs incurred to get rid of overlap and duplication in the short term. As a result of that we agreed to fund the new unified city of Toronto with a $50-million, one-time, upfront start-up cost to get rid of a lot of that duplication. They've done that. The budget chief of the city of Toronto has agreed that the $300 million we said would be there in savings as a result of getting rid of the overlap and duplication is indeed there and is being found. They have found and identified the vast majority of that money already, and within three years -

The Speaker: New question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. Our health critic, Gerard Kennedy, has repeatedly proven how your reduction in hospital funding is negatively affecting patient care in Ontario. In fact, in Sudbury alone in the last month, you have slashed 30 beds and you have closed the emergency ward at the Sudbury Memorial Hospital. You promised, though, that this closure would enhance emergency care.

Let me talk to you for a moment about Mrs Brenda Rantala-Sykes. Last Saturday Mrs Rantala-Sykes spent 14 hours in the emergency ward at the St Joseph's Health Centre. She didn't see a doctor for six and a half hours and was confined to an emergency cubicle which was more than 80 degrees in temperature. After 12 hours of waiting and near total exhaustion, she passed out on the hospital floor unattended. She sustained injuries to her neck, face, jaw and her right eye required six stitches to close the cut she received from the fall. Minister, my question is, is Mrs Rantala-Sykes's experience your idea of enhanced emergency care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We know of course that in Sudbury, as elsewhere throughout Ontario, we have been increasing the spending when it comes to health care dollars. We know that in the Sudbury-Manitoulin area we have spent at least $114.8 million beyond what you had indicated and we hope that everything is being done in order to ensure that the services required for patients are there for the patients.

Mr Bartolucci: Mrs Rantala-Sykes wants answers. The people of Sudbury want answers. Why did Mrs Rantala-Sykes have to spend 14 hours in an emergency ward? Why did she sustain injuries while she was there? Why did she leave the hospital sicker and more injured than when she went into the hospital? Why does Mrs Rantala-Sykes require the use and the services of a chiropractor? Why does Mrs Rantala-Sykes require the services of a plastic surgeon after her visit to the emergency ward? Why has Mrs Rantala-Sykes missed a week of work? Why can't Mrs Rantala-Sykes operate as a normal mother and parent?

Because of dizziness, because of spells she is now suffering because of her visit to the emergency ward.

Minister, will you now admit that your health care reform in Sudbury is dangerous to the health of Sudburians and will you and your government pay for the medical services Mrs Rantala-Sykes requires now?

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's very important to remember that people throughout Ontario are working extremely hard in order to ensure that all patients have the services required. On my very recent visit to the Sudbury community, in meeting with the individuals who provide the health care, there was every indication that they were moving forward. Articles in the media indicated that all of the investments that we have made to date were resulting in enhanced and improved services for people in your community.

If we take a look at what we have invested in priority programs, we know that there is $12 million more. There is $2.5 million more in long-term-care services. There is half a million more in mental health services. There is $1 million more -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - and the list goes on and on. I know that people are doing all they can in Sudbury. They are trying to ensure that patients -

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Attorney General. I am challenging the information that the Attorney General gave to the people of Ontario yesterday. The Attorney General will remember that there was a coroner's inquest into the murder of Arlene May and that coroner's inquest said, "The government of Ontario should establish a committee including equal numbers of government and community-based members to oversee the implementation and coordination of the recommendations made as a result of this inquest."

You were asked yesterday about that committee and you said: "I can tell the member that we have moved on setting up that committee. The committee is in fact being set up and is operating." Leaving aside the internal contradiction of your answer, we talked to two of the groups that had standing at that coroner's inquest, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses and the Metro Toronto Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children. Neither of those groups has heard from your government at all with respect to this committee. Would you care to clarify your answer, Mr Attorney General?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member will be aware that in addition to the May-Iles issue there is also the Kaufman commission that's being set up. Many of the recommendations overlap in terms of recommendations made to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

As I said yesterday, we are working on establishing a joint community-government committee for the recommendations that have been made. That is in the course of being done, as I said yesterday, and certainly we are moving on the implementation of the jury recommendations. As I said yesterday, we've doubled the number of witness assistance program sites, we've created domestic violence courts and we've expanded the use of domestic assault review teams. Crowns are receiving ongoing training on domestic violence and sexual assault.

There has been increased funding for specialized services for abused women which were not previously covered by legal aid, such as protection orders, custody and support orders. There has also been enhanced funding of $300,000 from the Ontario Women's Directorate to the legal aid plan which has doubled the hours for performing -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, the question was, is what you said yesterday accurate? I believe, from the answer that you just gave, it isn't. You should clarify that to the people of Ontario.

You indicated yesterday that you had set up, and in fact it was operating, this particular committee which came from the over 200 recommendations from this jury. That's what you said yesterday. We're asking you about these two organizations that had standing at the inquest, gave expert testimony and attended every one of the 51 days of the inquest. They have not been contacted by you or by the minister responsible for women's issues over the entire three months since those recommendations came out.

These are the women who are dealing on the front lines day after day and see the human tragedy of what happens when women and children have to flee their homes after they've been battered and abused.

The Speaker: Question?

Ms Churley: Will you take responsibility today and stand on your feet and say that you will set up this committee, contact these women's groups and get it started immediately?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have taken responsibility and we are taking a look at all of the recommendations. We are taking a look at how to implement all of the recommendations. We are in the course of doing that. As I indicated, we are in the course of setting up this working group to deal with many of these recommendations. Many are not involved with the committee, but we have made the public commitment and the ministry is working at dealing with a number of these recommendations now. We are moving on that, as we are moving on the Kaufman commission recommendations.

Certainly, as I've indicated: training and education - eight recommendations all now being worked on; enhanced capacity, more services, better procedures, 76 recommendations - we are now working on them; about 15% of the recommendations have been implemented to date.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): My question is to the minister responsible for children. Minister, in the most recent speech from the throne, the Honourable Hilary Weston, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, announced that our government commissioned an early learning study which will be co-chaired by the Honourable Margaret McCain and Dr Fraser Mustard. It is my understanding that this study will make recommendations to the government on how best to prepare young and pre-school children for a lifetime of learning and that this is the first such study of its kind.

Minister, can you tell me what areas the co-chairs will look at before making their recommendations?

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): I'd like to thank the member for Etobicoke-Humber for his question. This early-years study will provide options and recommendations to the government on the best ways of preparing all Ontario's children for success at school, in their careers and as members of society.

The development of the whole child is of great importance. It is the first time that a government in this province has taken the initiative to commission a study of this kind for children.

The study will also look at the roles and responsibilities of the community, voluntary, private and public sectors in the early years of a child's life. It will make recommendations to the government based on the best examples of programs that are helping children develop to their full potential.

Mr Ford: It's clear that the co-chairs and their advisers have a very important job to do. I believe it is important to really understand what we are doing for children, both here and in other areas, before we can truly see the improvements that might be made. Is the study taking this approach and will the study be completed?

Hon Mrs Marland: We must have a true understanding of how programs are serving children and families before we will know how to improve these supports for Ontario's families. This study will do just that. It will take a comprehensive look at the programs that are currently available and pinpoint those that are most effective for our children. In addition, the study will be looking at the leading research on early learning and what programs are available in other jurisdictions. The study will look at what we in Ontario can do to help promote a lifetime of positive learning experiences for our children. I am eager to see the study recommendations, which should be complete in December 1998.

This government is committed to early learning and we will continue to support initiatives, such as our preschool speech and language program, which help children get off to their best start.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Mr Leach. Recently municipalities sent out their final tax bill. With it they sent out a shock wave to the business and residential communities in Ontario: increases that will double and triple property taxes, increases that will force thousands of small business owners to close their doors, increases that will see bankruptcies skyrocket. Municipalities are forced to borrow to meet their basic needs.

I'm asking you today, Minister, will you come out of hibernation and announce in the House today what assistance you will propose, you will give, you will offer municipalities so they won't have to force homeowners to abandon their homes or business communities to abandon their businesses?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. The city of Toronto has worked with the new assessment system probably better than any other municipality in Ontario. As the member is aware, the province provided a number of tools to municipalities to ease the shift in taxes as a result of the new assessment system. I think everybody will recognize that the assessment system we had in Ontario was badly, badly broken and had to be fixed.

Toronto took advantage of the phase-in period and is phasing in residential taxes over five years. Toronto also recognized that there was some short-term assistance required for small businesses, so they accepted the tool that allowed a 2.5% cap to be put in place. Toronto has actually done a fine job and should be congratulated. Some of the decisions they had to make were extremely difficult and they did a very good job of making those very difficult decisions.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, the member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I find it strange when only 10% of municipalities have benefited from the tool you're talking about.

Last Friday, I met with two business entrepreneurs. They were furious about their municipal tax increase. I told them that they should point the finger at your government. Businesses in my area such as Plantagenet Printing, Bungee Banner of Plantagenet and St-Amour of Apple Hill are hit with municipal tax increases as high as 554%.

Minister, all of these tax increases are caused by your government's unplanned downloading. How does your government plan to help these small businesses which are the heart of the Ontario economy?

Hon Mr Leach: I believe the member opposite is talking about the new current value assessment system that has been put in place. That system was put in place to ensure there is fairness and equity right across Ontario. Whether it applies to Thunder Bay or whether it applies to the city of Toronto or whether it applies to Ottawa, there's a need in this province for fairness and equity. We gave the municipalities tools and the ability to phase in the different aspects of the new assessment system.

Whether it was the residential portion, with a phase-in of up to eight years for residential properties, or small businesses, where they could have tiered the increase, they could have capped the increase, they had all the tools necessary to ensure that the new, very fair and equitable tax system was phased in with little or no effect on the taxpayer.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mr Leach: The municipalities had the wherewithal to do that. Many municipalities did that. Some chose not to do that. Those that chose not to do that have to answer to -

The Speaker: Petitions.

PETITIONS

FATHERS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition that reads:

"Whereas children need the unfettered presence, care, and love of their fathers, and fathers want to have, care for and nurture their children after marriage breakdown as well as before; and

"Whereas marital separation is the end of the conjugal and financial relationship between a father and mother; and

"Whereas fathers experience misandry in the family courts of Ontario and other institutions which is depriving them of their children and subjugating them financially; and

"Whereas statutory recognition of these facts will reduce the burden of legal costs on families and the government, eliminate fatherlessness, cut down on self-destructive behaviour by separated fathers, reduce violence, and produce healthier and happier children with a greater sense of belonging and commitment to society;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass legislation:

"To ensure that no father is deprived against his will of the opportunity to fully and completely parent his children regardless of the father's marital status (unless the father has put the children's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted); and furthermore,

"To ensure that no father who is willing to care for his child is required to pay for the cost of child care provided by his child's mother when the child is under her care and not his care (unless the father has put the child's welfare at risk and all available alternatives have been exhausted), in particular for the cost of food, clothing and shelter.

"To provide an apology to fathers and children separated by the misandry of the family law system."

This is signed by over 300 constituents from ridings in eastern Ontario. I also affix my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris funding cuts are having a devastating impact on hospitals and patient care across Ontario, and have resulted in an anticipated $38-million deficit at the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals; and

"Whereas the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals will receive $4 million less in revenue from the Ministry of Health and other sources; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding cuts are causing a crisis in hospital care in Hamilton-Wentworth, with hospitals facing huge deficits, cuts to patient care and bed closings; and

"Whereas Scott Rowand, president of the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp's hospitals, spoke out recently in the Hamilton Spectator saying, `For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community'; and

"Whereas Mr Rowand went on to say: `We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because people in the system are at their limit.'

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government stop underfunding Ontario's hospitals to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and act immediately to restore funding to the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp hospitals so they can continue providing quality health care services to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth."

I continue to support the people of my community by adding my name to this petition.

RAILWAY TRACKS

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): I have a petition from residents of Mississauga East to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Canadian Railway tracks located north of Dundas Street East and lying between Cawthra Road and Hurontario Street in the city of Mississauga cause undue noise, vibration and air pollution caused by the use of this track as a railway shunting yard;

"Whereas the operation of this track occurs any time between the hours of 8 pm to 3 am to facilitate a steel-loading facility;

"Whereas the steel-loading facility was erected in the area without an environmental study;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to recognize that the hours of operation of this railway should be confined to normal working hours or that the work performed at this railway be located in the industrial area east of Cawthra Road where it would pose less of a disturbance."

I will sign this petition.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Mike Harris has imposed skyrocketing taxes on small business owners in Windsor because of his government's downloading debacle;

"Whereas many small business owners in Windsor who pay commercial property taxes face increases of more than 100%;

"Whereas the Harris government tax assessment system is confusing, chaotic and an administrative nightmare for municipalities;

"Whereas the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers called the Harris tax assessment system a `high-risk strategy' that will create `serious problems' for taxpayers and municipalities; and

"Whereas Windsor small businesses facing massive tax increases will be forced to pass on the increases to their customers, causing a decrease in business and causing the Ontario economy to suffer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to devise a fair and uncomplicated system of tax assessment."

I'm pleased to join the members of the Erie Street Business Improvement Association in signing this petition.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government's `downloading' to municipal taxpayers is directly responsible for the $36.3-million shortfall to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' is directly responsible for creating a property tax crisis in our region; and

"Whereas the Harris government, while boasting about its 30% tax cut which benefits mainly the wealthy, is making hard-working families, seniors, homeowners and businesses pay the price with outrageous property tax hikes and user fees for services; and

"Whereas city and regional councillors are being unfairly blamed and forced to explain these huge tax hikes, Hamiltonians know that what's really going on is that they are being forced to pay huge property tax increases to fund Harris's 30% tax giveaway to the rich; and

"Whereas homeowners, including seniors and low-income families, are facing huge property tax increases ranging from several hundred to thousands of dollars; and

"Whereas the Harris government `downloading' has led to huge property tax increases for business that will force many small and medium-sized businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth to close or leave the community, putting people out of work; and

"Whereas Hamilton-Wentworth region is proposing that the Harris government share in the costs of an expanded rebate program, worth about $3 million region-wide;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Harris government immediately eliminate the $38-million downloading shortfall that is devastating and angering homeowners as well as killing businesses in Hamilton-Wentworth."

I continue to support my petitioners by adding my name to this one.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the hospital restructuring commission established by the Mike Harris government is deliberating in secret about the future of hospitals in the Niagara region and is expected to report in the autumn of this year;

"Whereas the St Catharines General Hospital, the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the Shaver Hospital, along with the Niagara rehabilitation centre, have in the past provided excellent medical care for the people of St Catharines;

"Whereas the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Port Colborne hospital and the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital in Grimsby have been key centres of health care in the Niagara Peninsula;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to maintain existing medical services provided at these hospitals, restore the proposed $43-million cut from operating funds for the Niagara hospitals; and

"That the Ontario Ministry of Health provide additional funding to expand health care services available in the Niagara region for residents in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my name to this petition as I'm in complete agreement with its content.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to save the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital.

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

"We, the undersigned citizens of Hamilton and the surrounding communities, beg leave to petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has announced the closure of Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario, through the Health Services Restructuring Commission, is divesting its responsibility for mental health care without hearing from the community first; and

"Whereas community-based mental health care providers will bear the brunt of this ill-fated decision by being forced to meet what is sure to be an increased demand for their services; and

"Whereas the community pays the price for cuts to mental health care;

"Further, to call for full hearings to seek community solutions to community issues and to democratically decide the future of mental health care for the citizens of Hamilton and its surrounding area."

I add my name to this petition also.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral and religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

This petition is signed by 250 -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. The member for Yorkview.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition submitted to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services in Ontario."

I concur with the petitioners and I will affix my signature.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas each year in Ontario approximately 300 workers are killed on the job, several thousand die of occupational diseases and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas during the past decade the Workers' Health and Safety Centre proved to be the most cost-effective WCB-funded prevention organization dedicated to worker health and safety concerns; and

"Whereas the WCB provides over 80% of its legislated prevention funding to several employer-controlled safety associations and less than 20% to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre recently lost several million dollars in funding and course revenue due to government changes to legislated training requirements; and

"Whereas 30% of Workers' Health and Safety Centre staff were laid off due to these lost training funds; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now faces an additional 25% cut to its 1998 budget, which will be used to augment new funding for employer safety associations in the health, education and services sector; and

"Whereas the WCB's 1998 planned baseline budget cuts for safety associations and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre will be disproportionately against the workers' centre and reduce its 1998 budget allocation to less than 15% of the WCB prevention funding,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the WCB's proposed cuts and direct the WCB to increase the Workers' Health and Safety Centre's funding to at least 50% of the WCB's legislated prevention funding; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the WCB to significantly increase its legislated prevention funding in order to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I continue to support these petitions by adding my name.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne les heures d'enseignement.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 5, I am now required to put the question.

Mr Johnson has moved second reading of Bill 63. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1533 to 1538.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 35.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 5, Bill 63 is ordered for third reading, to be considered immediately.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): I move third reading of Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to instructional time.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask unanimous consent from all members of the House to divide the time equally among the three caucuses.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

We're into debate now and the leadoff debate is Mr Smith for the government.

Mr Smith: I'll be sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague from Sarnia, Mr Boushy. I'll be making some brief comments with respect to third reading of this bill -

The Speaker: Can you stop the clock just for a minute. Member for Middlesex, if you could do me a favour when you get up again: Could you tell me who you're sharing your time with? I wasn't certain about it.

Mr Smith: Mr Speaker, just to indicate to you that I'll be sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague from Sarnia, Mr Boushy, and will be making some brief comments with respect to Bill 63. He'll obviously carry the remaining portion of that.

It's my pleasure to rise and speak in support of third reading of Bill 63. As I've indicated on a previous occasion, this bill is necessary and appropriate to bring clarification to the meaning of instructional time as it applies to our teachers in this province. In that context it's important to emphasize that this particular bill is one part of a larger, comprehensive plan that the government of Ontario has advanced with respect to reforming education in this province, a comprehensive plan that is based on a vision and the sole motive of bringing and re-establishing a quality education system in this province.

It's in that context that since 1995 the government has pursued a comprehensive proposal whereby we're seeing more resources directed to the classroom, where we're seeing the tools that are necessary to deliver a quality education in this province being realized, whether it's in the form of financial assistance to school boards through transitional measures or whether it's in actual materials that students need in terms of their classroom experience in the form of textbooks.

We've talked a great deal about the need for and the introduction of province-wide testing and the role teachers have played in that context to evaluate and bring about a new standard and an opportunity to establish new benchmarks in terms of what we want to do with province-wide testing and how it relates to future curriculum documents, how it relates to new opportunities in the future with respect to teacher development and professional development for those teachers who are currently in the system.

I briefly want to reacquaint us with why the bill is before the Legislature. On a number of occasions the minister has spoken about this issue in terms of instructional time. In fact, we've brought this bill forward in legislation to ensure that there's a consistent province-wide understanding and application of instructional time while still allowing local flexibility with respect to its application.

The legislation confirms what constitutes instruction for the purposes of complying with

section 170.2.

Section 170.2, with respect to instructional time for teachers, sets minimum teaching time for elementary teachers as an average of at least 1,300 minutes over a five-day period, and for secondary teachers an average of at least 1,250 minutes over a five-day period.

In addition, the proposed legislation confirms that secondary school teachers are providing instruction when as part of their regular timetable they are supervising examinations or providing instruction in areas of course or program that are obviously eligible for credit, a special education program, a remedial class to assist pupils in completing a credit course or program required for graduation, an ESL program, an apprenticeship program, a co-operative education program or any other course or program that is specified in regulation.

It's in that context where there was genuine concern that some within the education community were pursuing a broader definition of what instructional time in fact meant. It was that confusion and broader application that necessitated the need for this particular bill and why the bill has been introduced by the Minister of Education and Training.

I think it's important to highlight as well that notwithstanding the debate that has occurred and the issues that continue to arise with respect to hours of teaching time, the standard that is being established in this province is still exceeded by the provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Manitoba. So we're not by any means charting a new course here in terms of a standard that is outrageous by comparison to other provincial jurisdictions in this country.

The standard certainly is in the middle of the road with respect to comparative hours of teaching time per day as it applies to other provinces. In fact, Ontario's new standard would still exceed only those numbers provided by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Quebec.

The point I wish to make here is that from my perspective, from the minister's perspective and from my caucus colleagues' perspective, the request that is being made of teachers in this province very much parallels, and in some cases is obviously exceeded by, the standards that have been established in some seven other provinces in this country. It's significant in terms of the instructional time that this clarification be clearly understood. It's important in the context of the quality initiatives this government has brought forward.

It's imperative in the context of the new standards that are being established for education in this province and what it means for the young people who are currently studying either at the elementary or secondary level in Ontario. That is why this bill was necessitated.

As I indicated yesterday in debate, albeit there has been no real demand or necessity for clarification of this definition in the past, obviously there was a need to bring conclusion to that particular issue and why this particular bill is now before us, and should the bill receive final approval, an important step in the next phase of successful and meaningful implementation and management of education reforms in this province.

In that context Bill 63 is important, a very important part, one that can't be dismissed, but a smaller

part in comparison to the bigger issues that this government has pursued on behalf of the students of this province. It's an issue that requires clarification, and I'm confident that at the end of the day, should this legislation be passed by the Legislature, there should be no confusion as to what is determined by "instructional time."

On that point I wish to conclude my remarks by simply saying that this bill is necessary and appropriate. It makes sense and certainly is necessary, as I indicated previously, as we move into the next phase of education reform for Ontario.

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): We are certainly going through a period of transition in our education system, and I believe it's up to all of us - students, teachers, parents and government - to work together in creating a quality education system that will provide Ontario's children the opportunity to achieve everything we know they are able to do.

We're all aware of the many studies, reports and royal commissions that have recommended major changes to the education system for many, many years, changes like clear province-wide standards, report cards that parents can understand, consistent up-to-date curriculum requirements and more accountable spending rules so we know where education dollars are going and can make accurate comparisons.

In this regard, I just want to mention to this House the feedback I had over the weekend. I made a point of speaking to two elementary schoolteachers in my riding. The elementary schools in my riding have settled, with contracts. One teacher said certainly they are working harder and the load is greater than they ever had before, but she said to me, "We knew those changes had to come, and we're working hard to make them work."

Another teacher said to me: "I'm not too sure what the high school teachers are hollering about, because they are just catching up with us. We believe that the system is good and these reforms had to come."

Our government responded to these calls for a significant improvement with a variety of measures, all aimed at refocusing the system to put the emphasis back on fundamentals while still offering children opportunities to become well-rounded individuals. A larger portion of the education budget has been redirected into the classroom, as you're all aware. Average class sizes have been capped, and we have set clear and higher standards for grade-by-grade achievement so that students and their parents will know exactly what the expectations are every step of the way.

We have invested, as you are aware, $100 million in new textbooks and other materials such as software and science equipment. This fall there are 3.2 million new textbooks in our children's classrooms.

I would like to just take you back to after we got elected in 1995. The first group of teachers came to see me in my office. They suggested they wanted a cap on class sizes, and I said to them, "We'll do that in regulations." They said: "No, we don't trust you. We want it in Bill 160."

Mr Wildman: You proved you couldn't be trusted.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please, member for Algoma.

Mr Boushy: We did put it in Bill 160. I'm not too sure what they're hollering about now. I understand the teachers wanted the cap lifted. They can't have it both ways.

Mr Wildman: No, they want maximum class sizes.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, come to order.

Mr Boushy: Province-wide testing and standardized report cards are now fully in place in Ontario schools, because our children deserve to have an equal opportunity for a quality education. No matter where they live in the province, when school is let out in June, all students in the same grade will have been taught the same fundamentals and skills to reach the same enhanced learning goals.

It's also important to recognize the right and responsibility of parents to have a say when decisions about their children's education are being made. That's why we have established a parent council at each and every school in the province. The curriculum, report cards and testing reforms will put the information parents need to participate in those decisions right in their hands.

But I think we all agree on the truth that the teacher in the classroom is the most important factor in the success of our education system. I find the current job actions still occurring in some boards very regrettable. When teachers' unions use parents and children as pawns in a protest that has nothing to do with the quality of education but rather with the working conditions, it harms the trust between all of us that's necessary if we are to truly have the best education system in the world.

Happily, we have strong indications that agreements can and are being reached by boards and unions that agree that students' needs come first, before any disagreement on working contracts. I want to tell you that I am very proud that the Lambton Kent board, the Sarnia, Lambton and Kent board, and its elementary school teachers led by example. They settled in direct bargaining, well before the school year began. There was no instruction time lost. There was no concern for parents.

Students and teachers all knew that come September school would be in session, not only with business as usual but with new and higher standards in place. I'm very proud of that fact. All elementary schools in my riding, in both systems, are in school and working.

Let me give you another example. Ontario college teachers went without contracts for two years, but they kept teaching and they kept negotiating at the same time, until they secured a contract and a raise as well. That's what I would say is a responsible attitude to take. The professionalism shown by these teachers is why they are so respected in my community, because I have in my community a college called Lambton College, and I am very proud of our teachers. They have priorities straight, and they exemplify what's best in our education system.

Unfortunately, may I add, not all boards and unions have followed their shining example. Every day for the last month I have read stories or listened to complaints about activities being boycotted by teachers. I have to wonder why and, more directly, how teachers can do this.

Last week I heard about a school in the Hamilton area where the teachers refused to participate in a graduation ceremony for the students. Can you imagine? I am truly saddened and troubled that this could happen. What purpose could possibly have been achieved, what point could possibly have been made by those teachers not being there for the students on one of the most important nights in their life?

In my community there are students who are losing out on playing football after school, playing in the school band or acting in after-school plays. Again, I fail to understand why students must be harmed because some teachers' unions disagree with the time they're expected to spend in the classrooms.

Mr Wildman: It's not about time, it's about 25 more students.

Mr Boushy: The main complaint of the secondary teachers' union, as we all know, is the amount of time teachers are expected to spend in the classroom. Any high school teacher will tell you that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who writes this stuff?

Mr Wildman: It is not about time. That is where you are.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Members for Algoma and St Catharines, come to order.

Mr Boushy: Bill 160 requires high school teachers to teach on average an extra 25 minutes a day, for a total of four hours and 10 minutes per day. This is still less than teachers in other provinces and less than elementary school teachers are required to teach. They are doing it in my riding, and they're happy. The elementary school teachers are happy doing it.

Mr Wildman: The secondary school teachers offered to teach that and your government said no.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, order.

Mr Boushy: It's notable that all of these other teachers still find time to enrich students' lives with after-school activities. Not only do the students benefit from these activities by becoming more well-rounded individuals, but the teachers also benefit from getting to know their students better and working with them to organize events that are fun and exciting for everyone involved. It's tragic that both teachers and students are losing out because of detrimental pressure tactics foolishly promoted by teacher unions.

We think everyone shares our commitment to quality. We simply disagree on how to achieve it. Those disagreements are political and they should be kept in that arena for the next election, which probably will be called within a year.

What quality education is about is building and developing a partnership among students, parents, teachers and government to successfully implement education reforms. We can all agree that all children have the opportunity to be the best they can be, no matter where they live or what their abilities or special needs may be.

I sincerely hope that all teachers across our province will quickly rethink the strategy of withholding their participation. For the sake of our students we need to strengthen our level of co-operation and commitment to doing what's best for our children.

Since I have time, I would like to take a minute or so because I heard opposition from the Liberal benches and the NDP benches. I am very pleased to have this extra time to make one or two additional comments.

I wish someone could clarify what exactly the Liberal Party stance on education is. I would love to know.

First, we have the member for Ottawa South introducing a private bill to take away from teachers the right to strike after October. Then, when he is Leader of the Opposition, we see him supporting an illegal strike and walking with the strikers. Then, during the last union action, he says he won't support back-to-work legislation unless the Education Relations Commission says the school year is threatened. What does he do when he realizes parents want students back in school no matter what the ERC has or hasn't said?

In the grand Liberal tradition, he decided to still vote against the bill but to say no quickly, a very sudden reversal from the Liberal education critic who vowed to stall the legislation.

What exactly do the Liberals think? I don't understand what he's thinking. One day he's for a strike; another day he's against a strike.

Mr Bradley: Did you want it to go all week?

The Acting Speaker: Member for St Catharines.

Mr Boushy: While I might disagree with the NDP policy, at least I know where they come from. They're focused. They are for unions.

Mr Bradley: It's in the script.

The Acting Speaker: Come on. Order.

Mr Boushy: They're for teachers.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bradley: It's quite obvious that it's in the script. Every Tory member has been given the script. They're supposed to say, "Well, you know, we disagree with the NDP but at least we know where the NDP stands," and the Liberals of course are the enemy. They've got to build up the NDP. Not that the NDP wants this, because they are totally opposed to the policies of the Conservative government, but it's a strategy they have of trying to prop up a third party.

I'm surprised the member for Sarnia would simply read the script from Guy Giorno, the 30-something whiz kid who makes all the decisions for this government. I'm shocked the member for Sarnia would do that. What the member should know -

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): What about the EI?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Bradley: I say to the member for Etobicoke-Humber that I understand Chris Stockwell has now sold 5,000 memberships for Etobicoke Centre. But I digress.

I want to tell you what is happening out there is that at no time in the history of the province has the morale of those who deliver the front-line education services been at a lower ebb. Many of these people in years gone by have supported the Conservative Party. They've supported, in fact, all three pa