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

April 23, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L179 - Wed 23 Apr 1997 / Mer 23 Avr 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FERRY SERVICES

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

SCHOOL BOARDS

DIRECTED BLOOD DONATIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORGAN DONATION

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FINANCING

SCHOOL BOARDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LOBBYIST REGISTRATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ANNUAL REPORTS

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

ANNUAL REPORTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION

CLASS SIZE

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

LABOUR DISPUTE

CHARITABLE GAMING

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEWER SCHOOL BOARDS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FERRY SERVICES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a number of occasions I have spoken of the great injustice that this government is committing on those Ontarians who live in island communities as a result of Mike Harris's decision that municipalities should assume full funding responsibility for the operating and financing of ferry services that link those islands to the mainland. It means that in my riding, Amherst Island, Wolfe Island and Howe Island will in effect have to increase their taxes eightfold in order to pay for those services.

You can well imagine my disgust and anger at receiving a letter from the Minister of Transportation just yesterday in which he states, "Let me remind you that the province is not reducing any transportation services." They're not only reducing the transportation services; they're reducing the only services these people have to the mainland.

He goes on to say, "We are reducing duplication of the delivery of local transportation services to ensure Ontario taxpayers have fair, efficient and accountable public services." Duplication? There's only one ferry that links each one of these islands to the mainland.

These decisions are callous; they are reprehensible; they have caused a great amount of distress and anxiety for the people of these islands. Why don't the minister and the government do the right thing and accept their responsibility, that they are responsible for the governing of all of the people of Ontario? Put the funding of these ferries back into the provincial budget. These people demand it; all Ontarians demand it.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Bill 107 is part of the downloading from the province on to municipalities. It transfers 25% of Ontario's water supply system to towns and cities. During public hearings on the bill, some presenters asked if Bill 107 is about privatizing Ontario's water and sewer systems.

Yes, it is. In fact, Bill 107 provides the terms for privatization, which provides generous incentives. For example, companies that buy public water and waste water facilities will have access to all properties connected with those facilities and will not be required to pay interest from provincial grants. Presenters said it would be impossible for municipalities to take on the added expense of water and waste water facilities without either raising municipal taxes or selling off the facility to a private company.

In England, privatization of water services led to outrageous increases in the price of water, loss of water services to low-income people, putting their health and their children's health at risk, outbreaks of disease, loss of jobs, and the failure to reinvest the profits into crumbling infrastructures. This must not be allowed to happen in Ontario.

I urge the minister to amend the legislation to specifically prohibit privatization of our water and waste water facilities.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, will, if passed into law, reduce school board bureaucracy and focus resources on the individual student and student achievement in the classroom.

However, don't just take my word for it. It was former NDP Education Minister Dave Cooke who, on May 5, 1993, had this to say: "We need to take a look at the number of school boards that we have in this province, we need to take a look at how much money is being spent in the classroom versus how much money is being spent in administration and in school boards and...we need to put more money into the classrooms instead of in structures...." On December 7, 1993, Dave Cooke said, "Millions of dollars can and need to be saved in our education system." On November 23, 1994, Dave Cooke said he was ready to bring in legislation to reduce the number of school boards in Ontario.

Even the current leader of the official opposition said on January 13, 1997, "There is generally a fairly broad support for reduction in school boards...."

It should be clear to everyone in this House that our children's education and their futures are too important to let partisan differences prevent us from working together on Bill 104 to make students, not bureaucrats, the focus of an affordable, world-class education system.

DIRECTED BLOOD DONATIONS

We're calling upon the Minister of Health in this province to direct the Red Cross as well as the other officials across this province to change this policy. There must be some flexibility and some room for interpreting services to be available. As the policy now stands, individuals who walk in with a family member or a relative to interpret for them are still not allowed to donate blood or to store their own blood. This is a practice that is unacceptable.

I commend the Red Cross for the steps it has taken to improve the safety of the blood supply in this country, but I believe this step goes too far and frankly millions of Canadians will be unentitled to give or store their own blood if this is not changed. I call upon the Minister of Health in this province to work with the federal government and the Red Cross to change what is clearly a discriminatory policy and one that is negatively affecting millions of Canadians.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The government is at it again. They're not listening to the people of Ontario. They're just moving ahead with their agenda and implementing things that will have a massive and negative impact on communities.

Just a couple of months ago the community of Sault Ste Marie, under the leadership of the mayor, had a forum at city council. It went on for two nights, literally 40 or 50 presentations on health care and the impact of the download, the cutting of money to the hospitals in our area and the stories that were beginning to evolve. We were all excited by the content of the input, by the positive, constructive suggestions that were made and the overall tone of that exercise.

The member for Algoma, Bud Wildman, and I sent an invitation to the Minister of Health to meet with this group, the forum leadership and some members of my community, to hear the results of this report, to hear from the people of Sault Ste Marie and Algoma what they felt will be in the best interests of them and of health care and their families. But alas, as has become the trend in this place, the minister has said no, he doesn't want to meet.

He's already made up his mind. He knows what he's going to do. He understands very well that this is not about improving health care, this is not about providing the best of health care to the citizens of Algoma and Sault Ste Marie. This is about cutting, about taking money out. He will not meet with the mayor and the forum leadership and the community of Sault Ste Marie about this very important issue, and that's a shame.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm proud to advise the House that April 20 to 26 is National Organ Donor Week. Organ and tissue donation represents the gift of life from one individual to another. One person's gift may benefit a number of people. For more than 1,200 people in Ontario, receiving an organ or tissue transplant is the only hope for a healthy, productive life, or life at all.

Medical advances have made it possible to successfully transplant the following organs: kidney, liver, heart, lung, pancreas and small bowel, as well as these tissues: cornea, skin, bone and heart valves.

People are dying because of a critical shortage of donated organs. Transplantation is a proven, effective medical treatment for patients who have no other alternatives. What you can do now affects lives in the future. I'm asking everybody in the House to sign a donor card, discuss it with your family and ask them to respect your wishes. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the hundreds of families who have already made donations that have made a difference in the lives of many other people.

If anyone requires further information, they should contact the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program at 1-800-263-2833.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The grape and wine industry, which produces millions of dollars of economic activity and thousands of jobs directly and indirectly for Ontario, is being placed in jeopardy by a proposal by the Ontario government to have estate wineries assessed as industrial properties.

These wineries are situated on land zoned agricultural, since there's a large farm component to these operations. Land zoned agricultural and buildings on it do not have access to services available to businesses on land zoned industrial. As well, wineries within the Niagara Escarpment plan are justifiably subject to strict land use restrictions.

As a result of this policy of the Conservative Harris government, a number of wineries are facing staggering tax increases which could amount to thousands of dollars, a penalty which may well make the difference between continuing their business operations and shutting their doors. At the very least, this regressive and ill-considered tax change will discourage the opening of new wineries or the expansion of existing operations.

I am calling upon the Harris government to abandon this unwise and punitive measure affecting estate wineries in Ontario and to return to the farm assessment model, which is far more appropriate to estate wineries and consistent with similar operations across the province.

Tourism in the grape-growing and wine-producing area of Ontario is growing in economic importance. Wineries continue to provide good jobs, as do grape-growing farm operations. The fate of our grape and wine industry is in the hands of the provincial government. Only the abandonment of this disastrous taxation policy is acceptable.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I just had the opportunity and the honour to meet with a group of parents and students from Bowmore Road school in my riding. The parents' representative of the home and school and the parents' council and many students were here today to give me what amounts to over 2,000 cards and letters that have been signed, and many more signatures from the school-parent community on a petition, all directed to the Premier and the Minister of Education with respect to changes in our education system, and in particular Bill 104.

The card to the Premier and the minister reads:

"You promised your cuts would not touch our students' classrooms. Keep your promise. Keep the present level of funding. Schools belong to the community. Keep the community's tax dollars in the community. Let the community decide what's best for their schools.

"Children matter. Quality public education matters."

The letters set out their concerns about the rapid and massive changes that are taking place and that they will jeopardize the quality of education for our children by not recognizing that our children's classrooms do include libraries and librarians, music and phys-ed teachers, caretakers, principals and secretaries, remedial, special education and ESL programs, teaching assistants and psychological support -- many issues of concern.

These parents of one school in one neighbourhood have gathered over 2,000 signatures urging the government to cease the insanity, to keep our education a public system.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): Earlier this morning a media conference was held here at Queen's Park by a group of teachers, students, parents and trustees. They came to this Legislature to tell this government what they really think of Bill 104, and this is what they had to say:

Trustee Bob Dobson said he believes Bill 104 will eliminate school board bureaucracy and result in more money being placed directly towards the classroom.

Trustee Tina Rotondi-Molinari said Bill 104 will result in funding equity for all students in Ontario, and that while other governments talked about reforming education, the government will act accordingly.

Todd Blimke, a student, said he believes 104 will finally cut down on administrative red tape and put more money towards classroom education.

Parents Mary Smeenk, Kathleen Pinto and Eve Peterson applaud this bill for bringing accountability to bear on school curricula.

Ontarians are telling us that Bill 104 makes winners of all stakeholders in our education system, including taxpayers, parents and, most of all, students in the classroom.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LOBBYIST REGISTRATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I am pleased to announce two new initiatives that support the government's commitment to manage its activities openly, fairly and transparently.

Taxpayers have the right to know that dealings undertaken by the government will serve to advance the public interest.

We are moving to become the first Canadian province to enact a lobbyist registration law. If the legislation is passed as planned in the fall, this public registry will include a list of all people and firms who are paid to lobby the government. This will allow taxpayers to have open access to information about companies and individuals seeking to influence government decision-making.

Times have changed since existing conflict-of-interest rules were established. The government now deals with a variety of organizations as we look for ways to improve delivery of services.

It's a matter of good practice to ensure that we establish clear rules that reflect this new world and ensure accountability on the part of government. For this reason we are establishing a new conflict-of-interest policy for senior public officials and senior public servants to reflect our wide range of relationships with other government organizations and the private sector.

The new policy covers individuals involved in a range of activities, including contracting out, franchising and public-private partnerships.

New provisions will expand and reinforce existing rules in the Public Service Act which govern public servants in their day-to-day activities. Ministers are already covered by the Members' Integrity Act, which has rules consistent with those being put in place as of today.

People in positions of authority who have access to confidential or insider information cannot use it to gain an unfair advantage or put the public interest at risk. They may be restricted for up to 12 months from accepting jobs with organizations they had significant dealings with as a government employee within the previous 12 months.

Individuals are also prohibited from switching sides if they were involved in a government transaction. For instance, if they had worked on a government tender, they cannot then go to work for any of the bidders for that tender before the contract is awarded. Potential conflict situations will be reviewed and ruled on by an impartial third party.

Both of these initiatives, lobbyist registration and conflict-of-interest provisions, will ensure that the process of government is kept open, fair and transparent and will ensure that the public interest and taxpayers' investment continue to be protected.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): The Liberal Party applauds the government that would bring forward any kind of legislation that would be preventive in terms of ruling on conflict of interest, in particular in light of the Conservative government that is now in office in Ontario.

Very specifically, the government is having to look at legislation that governs lobbyists for one reason: You have been absolutely inundated by lobbyists over the last two years, and I ask you why. Why? Because this is a government that is absolutely not listening to the very people who call on a regular phone and want to talk to the government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: Isn't it interesting how sensitive the caucus is on that side of government? May I say to the members opposite that you in fact may be the first ones to have to hire your own lobbyist to lobby your own cabinet, to lobby your own Premier. In fact I may have to hire a lobbyist. I've been begging for a meeting with the Premier to discuss very relevant issues in my own riding and can't get the Premier -- he can't possibly be afraid of the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I may have to hire a lobbyist.

We're very happy to see the kind of legislation you're putting in place -- any of it would be good. Now let's talk about regular folk across Ontario who have tried for months to speak to their government members about legislation that they're putting forward. Let's talk about Bill 84 and the firefighters. How many lobbyists do the firefighters have to hire to get you to understand reason and the damaging effects of Bill 84 across Ontario? Do the families who have disabled children at home in Durham region need to hire a lobbyist so that their own member, Minister of Community and Social Services Janet Ecker, would actually respond to the people in her own riding?

We have any number of examples of members who don't listen to their own constituents at home. Why would the minister today, the Management Board Chair, not bring forward some kind of legislation that would deal with the ministers themselves? A high embarrassment for the Ontario government when a Minister of Finance -- "Eves Understated Travel Expenditures." Why would we not see some kind of regulation come forward that would actually put the ministers on the hook to answer for the kind of expenses they are making in the face of wide cuts across the board in every ministry? Why would this not happen?

I think it's very ironic that yesterday all these order paper questions were tabled with the government -- order papers that ask specific questions about providing detailed accounts of expense claims submitted by every minister and their senior staff, that in fact will tell us whether there are other ministers such as the Minister of Finance, who allows his senior staff to submit expenses on the minister's behalf.

Is this the kind of embarrassment that we have to face as Ontario legislators? Whether it's part of our party or not, this is a government that represents us all and a Globe and Mail

article that goes across the country. This is the kind of action that we would prefer to see the government leading towards, stopping this kind of nonsense that is happening currently in this government.

Let's talk a little bit about some kind of regulation concerning ministries and the type of advertising that they can run. In the face of the massive cuts in health care, we see the Ministry of Health wasting taxpayers' dollars running government advertising right across Ontario, so that I get the call from the 76-year-old woman who spent hours waiting in the emergency room to explain to her why she watches Mike Harris standing outside of a hospital wasting her taxpayers' dollars on government ads. But today you come forward with legislation that deals with lobbyists.

I have a question for the Management Board Chair. Is this going to be a retroactive position with this legislation? When our leader Dalton McGuinty advanced questions to the Premier on this very issue, at that point we already knew, Paul Rhodes gone, Perry Martin gone, Ed Arundell gone, Mitch Patten gone. When we look at the key company that is today running the maintenance contract for MTO in southwest -- it's called IMOS -- and look at the key individuals who are running that company today, every one of them is a key senior bureaucrat from the Ministry of Transportation.

What kind of a link is there for those people coming from the ministry and moving into the private sector? Key positions -- those are positions that are not part of a consulting firm, but they are part of the companies that have already won lucrative contracts from this very government. All of this throws a great deal of suspicion on this very government.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to respond to the Chair of Management Board and to indicate to him that we support the principle of lobbyist registration and conflict-of-interest provisions for senior public servants. It's a necessary step to take.

I would reinforce what he says in reference to the fact that we live in a new world now. I certainly agree that with this government in office it is a new world when it comes to dealing with lobbyists. I sat on the resources development committee last week to talk about privatization of sewer and water services, and I could see the lobbyists just drooling in the audience, wondering how they were going to get in on the action. It is important that we have registration of lobbyists so it's more out in the open than it is now, because right now it is all behind closed doors.

Never in the history of this province have we needed guidelines for lobbyists like we do now. Whether we're talking about sewer and water services, whether we're talking about LCBO, whether we're talking about Ontario Hydro, can you imagine the profits that await the private sector if they get their hands on the water services of this province, if they get their hands on the LCBO and the profits that lie therein, or on Ontario Hydro? There are enormous potential profits. For that reason, this government knows that it would not have dared to move forward with privatization without registration for lobbyists.

Interjection: Will you support it?

Mr Laughren: As I indicated at the beginning, yes, I will support this registration once we have seen the details in it. We anticipate that next week the minister for privatization will be coming forward with his long-awaited framework for privatization and we'll see how that will tie in with the registration for lobbyists as well.

What happened with one example of privatization was in the Chatham district where the Minister of Transportation privatized the maintenance of highways in that area. It was a $27-million contract, which very effectively shut out all the small contractors who anticipated that they could be part of the action of the new world of contracted-out services by this government. The Minister of Transportation wrote the requirements in such a way that only the large operators were allowed to get in. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, it was Miller Paving that won the award in Chatham; I think that's correct.

That's hardly a small contractor. You wonder who's going to be out there looking after the interests of the small contractors as privatization really swings into full gear.

We will be supporting these provisions as long as they are transparently clear for everyone. I would simply encourage lobbyists out there who are sitting waiting to see what they have to do not to wait too long. Get in right now. Phone the four backbenchers who were fired from the parliamentary assistants' jobs. Phone them right away. Get on the list, because those people need the help of a lobbyist more than any large corporation ever will.

I would encourage the lobbyists out there to get busy, get their feet wet, get their foot in the door by starting with those four poor, fired, backbench, former parliamentary assistants. Those are the people who will need the help, because they were treated with such disrespect by the Premier.

I encourage the lobbyists to get on board and follow the rules as they're going to be laid out. I haven't seen them yet. All we've seen is the announcement from the minister. I think following that will be the framework for privatization. When we see those two together, side by each, as they say, then we'll have a better understanding to what extent this government is serious about regulating the lobbyists in this province.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to draw your attention to Hansard, page 7518, April 2. You will recall that on that day I raised a point of order with you related to a memo that had come into my possession regarding a meeting that was planned in southwestern Ontario for Dave Cooke and Ann Vanstone, the co-chairs of the proposed Education Improvement Commission, a meeting which was to take place on April 9. I understand that meeting did take place.

I pointed out at that time that there was a handwritten memo written on this memorandum by a Mr Jack, who is the senior person in the Ministry of Education regional office, asking for names of representatives who would attend the meeting and stating that the deadline for this information was March 26, the day we would be dealing with clause-by-clause of Bill 104.

I pointed out at that time that the bill was not in place; the memo did not even use the term "proposed Education Improvement Commission." I asked you if this did not in any way seem to be contempt of the House, since the House has not yet, even now, passed Bill 104 into law. This meeting took place and other similar meetings have taken place. There was one in Ottawa a week or so ago.

At the time, Speaker, you thanked me for the submission and you said you would take the opportunity to review this and report back at a later date. The date is later.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Normally when I say that and you bring it back to my attention, I would have some rationale for the length of time it has taken to report back. I would explain at this time that I don't have any rationale other than that I forgot. I give you my undertaking that I will report back with due dispatch.

ANNUAL REPORTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have another point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Another point of order, different?

Mr Wildman: Yes, a different point of order. As you know, Speaker, ministries of the government of Ontario as well as the government's many agencies, boards and commissions are accountable to this Legislature through ministers of the cabinet. Standing order 39(

a) states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I'm speaking in particular reference to the annual report of the registrar general, the Vital Statistics Act. The filing requirement for this is: "The registrar general shall, after the close of each calendar year, submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council a report as to the number of births, marriages, deaths, still-births, adoptions, divorces and changes of name registered during the preceding calendar year and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The 1996 report is still outstanding. It has not been submitted to this House. I'm not aware that the appropriate minister has provided this House with any explanation for the delay, so I would request that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not yet been filed.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I will simply say that there may be a few of these reports, and I suspect this afternoon we may have the opportunity to hear of a few reports. My recollection is that a great number of these reports -- there are literally hundreds of them from various agencies, boards, ministries etc -- have in fact been printed and brought forward.

There are some others, some dating back to before 1990 during a Liberal government and many dating back to the NDP government, which has raised the point here today, a few dating back certainly into its term.

I will say categorically that the reason there are a few reports -- some from the Liberal era, some from the NDP era, a few from the current government's era -- that have not been brought in is that the ministries involved, the agencies involved, have been setting priorities, have been attempting to deal with all the matters under their jurisdiction, have every intention to come forward with the report, but they simply have other matters within their jurisdiction, other more pressing matters they have to deal with.

I will give you my undertaking that we are endeavouring to encourage all the agencies, all the ministries, for all these reports, to try to raise the profile and the priority of these reports and to have them as soon as possible.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Point of order.

The Speaker: I've just got to rule on this. I kind of sense something about these reports.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): That's a rare ability you've got there, Chris.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Fort York. I didn't grow up on the south side of the tree.

I've got to say that the point of order the member opposite has raised is in order. I say to the House leader for the government that I appreciate your input, but that point of order was in order and I would suggest to the House leader that he may investigate this and other processes, because at this point in time, if they're raised subsequently, they are points of order that are in order that then must be heard.

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I also rise on a point of order with respect to standing order 39(a). As you know, the ministries of the government of Ontario, as well as government's many agencies, boards and commissions, are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of cabinet who sit opposite. Standing order 39(

a) states very clearly that ministers shall present reports required by statute within six months of the closing of the report.

I am speaking with particular reference to the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. As you know, this is very topical because under the hospitals restructuring commission report there are recommendations for changes there. There is

an act that governs that institution, the Ontario Mental Health Foundation Act, which has the following filing requirement:

"26(1) The institute shall, after the close of each fiscal year, make a report on its affairs during the preceding year to the Minister of Health and to the foundation, and every such report shall contain" -- this is very important information -- "a financial statement, certified by the auditor, showing all money received and disbursed by the institute during the preceding year.

"

(2) The Minister of Health shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

Mr Speaker, I specifically want to raise with you the report from 1995-96, which has not yet been submitted to the House. I'm not aware that the appropriate minister has provided this House with any explanation for the delay. I request that you convey to the minister, the Minister of Health in this case, the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, in an exchange between myself and the Premier -- I want to clear this matter up -- he indicated that I may want to review very carefully the information I laid before the House and that I may want to withdraw some of it at the appropriate moment. I just want to tell the House that I have reviewed what I said yesterday and I stand by everything I said in the House yesterday.

ANNUAL REPORTS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, we have in this House many rules which ensure that the ministries of the government of Ontario, as well as the government's many agencies, boards or commissions, are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of the cabinet.

Standing order 39(

a) is the provision that I want to draw to your attention. It states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I want to draw to your attention particularly the annual report of the University of Toronto. Under the University of Toronto Act there is a filing requirement which says: "The governing council shall make a financial report annually to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in such form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

I would like to draw specifically to your attention, Speaker, the fact that the report for the fiscal year 1995-96 is outstanding and I'm not aware the appropriate minister has provided this House with an explanation for the delay, which is the other way in which the minister could have dealt with this. So I request that you convey to the minister my concerns and those, I hope, of the House that this particular report which is required to have been filed has not in fact been filed.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. You know, as most of us do, that the ministries of the government as well as the many agencies, boards and commissions are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers. Standing 39(

a) states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I rise in particular reference to the annual report of the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, a very important act, which has not yet been submitted to this House, and as far as I know, the minister has not provided this House with a reason why the report for 1995-96 has not been presented.

The filing requirement is not obscure, it's not debatable; it's very clear and it says as follows:

"The books and accounts of the corporation," and by "the corporation," we mean the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp, "shall be audited by the Provincial Auditor or such other auditor," so it doesn't have to be the Provincial Auditor, it could be another auditor, "as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate and such auditor," whether it's the Provincial Auditor or some other designated auditor, "shall make an annual report of the audit to the Treasurer" -- that means Minister of Finance now I think but that standing order hasn't been amended to reflect the changes in the language of this place -- "and the Treasurer shall table the report in the assembly if it is in session," such as we are now, "or, if not, at the next session," which presumably would be the fall session.

We have not yet seen the report for 1995-96. That's an important omission or, if not omission, error on the part of this government and we ask your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'll alert the Minister of Finance.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Mr Speaker, I too rise on a point of order that has just been brought to my attention. In accordance with -- and I have with me the standing orders, règlement. There has been an omission and I quote from

article 39(a):

"Annual reports and other sessional papers

"39(

a) Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

Of course, we're talking specifically about time for presenting statutory reports. I'm appalled and shocked and very disappointed that the report dealing with the Ontario Energy Corp, which is vital for the good functioning of this House -- that this information be presented within the specified period. I wish to with respect bring this to your attention. This very crucial report has yet to reach the assembly as prescribed under standing order 39(a), an offence of grave order. I know that judiciously your wisdom and your office will address this.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Point of order: As you know, Speaker, the ministries of the government of Ontario as well as many agencies, boards and commissions are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of the cabinet.

Standing order 39(

a) states very clearly, "Ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I'm speaking in particular reference to the annual report of the council of the association in the Professional Engineers Act. Filing requirement: "The council shall make a report annually to the minister" -- the Attorney General -- "containing such information as the minister requires." Under 48(2), "The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report was the 1991 annual report, May 25, 1992. Outstanding is the 1995 report, which has not yet been submitted to this House. I'm not aware if the appropriate minister has provided this House with an explanation for any of the delay. Mr Speaker, I request that you convey to the minister the concern of the House that the required report has not been filed.

The Speaker: Which minister?

Mr Len Wood: The Attorney General.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Point of order.

The Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie, just give me one moment on your point of order. I appreciate the points of order. I understand 39(a). You don't have to read the ruling every time. If you want, you can just pursue it through. I understand the point you're standing on. If it's the same or similar, you can just make your points and so on.

Mr Martin: It's important, Speaker, for me to understand as I present it to you and for folks out there to know exactly which piece of --

The Speaker: I appreciate what you're saying about the folks out there, but right now I'm concerned about the folks here and I'm just asking you -- you don't need to read 39(

a) any more. Go ahead.

Mr Martin: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: As you know, the ministries of the government of Ontario, as well as the government's many agencies, boards and commissions, are accountable to this Legislature through the ministers of the cabinet.

Standing order 39(a), which is what we're standing on here, is very clear. I'm speaking in particular reference today to the annual report of the Ontario Arts Council, under the Arts Council Act, 1990.

The filing requirement is such: "The chair of the council shall annually file with the minister a report upon the affairs of the council, and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report that was tabled under this particular statute was the 1994-95 annual report, on July 12, 1996. I am speaking in particular reference to the annual report of the 1995-96 year, which has not been submitted to this House. I am not aware that the appropriate minister has provided this House with an explanation for this delay. Mr Speaker, I request that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

The Speaker: Point of order -- I'll go to the government House leader.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I have a listing of all those reports which have not been filed within the six months, and I'll read them to you, so all the members of the House I'm sure will listen and will take full accord of this.

The Speaker: Government House leader, you're going to read those reports that aren't filed? I would appreciate it if you could provide a copy for the table.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, I'll certainly provide a copy for the table.

The Farm Income Stabilization Act, which has been overdue since 1994, from the previous government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I want to hear each and every item that's spoken to. Please don't heckle, because I'm certain there are going to be questions about which was ordered and which wasn't.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Who was the minister then?

The Speaker: Member for High Park-Swansea, I don't care who the minister was. I just want to hear this and I said no heckling, please.

Hon David Johnson: From the Ministry of the Attorney General: the Architects Act, again overdue in 1993, as well as 1994 and 1996; Courts of Justice Act, overdue in 1992-96 inclusive; Law Society Act; Ministry of Attorney General Act, overdue 1994, 1995 and 1996; Professional Engineers Act, overdue 1992-96 inclusive;

Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation: the Human Rights Code, overdue 1990-91; McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act, overdue 1995-96; Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act; Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Act; Niagara Parks Act, overdue 1996;

Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Discriminatory Business Practices Act, overdue 1995-96; Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, overdue 1991, 1994, 1995 and 1996;

Ministry of Education and Training: Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Education Act (Planning and Implementation), overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Education Act (Ministries Act), overdue 1995-96; Huron College Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive;

An Act respecting McMaster University, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ontario College of Art Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Act, overdue 1988-96 inclusive; Regis College Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, overdue 1993-94; School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, overdue 1993-96; University of Toronto Act, overdue 1993-96; University of Waterloo Act, overdue 1993-96; University of Western Ontario Act, overdue 1993-96; Wilfrid Laurier University Act, overdue 1993-96;

Ministry of Environment and Energy: Ontario Energy Corporation Act, overdue 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996;

Ministry of Finance: Capital Investment Plan Act; Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, overdue 1992-96; Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, overdue 1991, 1992, 1994 and 1996; Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act, Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Registered Insurance Brokers Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive;

Ministry of Health: Cancer Act, Ontario Cancer Institute, overdue 1992-96 inclusive; Cancer Act, Ontario Cancer Treatment Foundation, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Denture Therapists Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Health Disciplines Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Health Insurance Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Independent Health Facilities Act, overdue 1992-96 inclusive; Ministry of Health Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Ontario Mental Health Foundation Act, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996; Regulated Health Professions Act;

Ministry of Labour: Ministry of Labour Act, overdue 1994, 1995, 1996;

Ministry of Municipal Affairs: Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act, overdue 1993 and 1994; Ontario Municipal Board Act, overdue 1991-96 inclusive;

Management Board: Ministry of Government Services Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act, overdue 1995-96;

The last page -- Ministry of Natural Resources: Ministry of Natural Resources Act, overdue 1992-96 inclusive; Surveyors Act, overdue 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996;

Ministry of Solicitor General: Ministry of Solicitor General Act, overdue 1989-96;

Ministry of Transportation: Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, overdue 1993-96 inclusive; Ministry of Transportation and Communications Act, overdue 1995-96.

Mr Speaker, those are the lists of outstanding reports. You will see that many of them date back to about 1992 or 1993 and some back to 1988 and 1989, but it seems as if in many cases to 1992 or 1993, when the NDP was in government, the party which is expressing such great concern here this afternoon that these reports are not in. Yet it was that very party, when in government, that did not take the initiative to have these reports in.

By standing order 39(a), the minister shall present reports "unless reasons for delay are given to the House." I will give those reasons in each and every case -- this list, which I will table with the Clerk's department. Those ministries have been involved in very important matters which have consumed their time.

Particularly over the last couple of years, those important matters are providing services to the people of Ontario; they are providing the business plans to guide the services that are being provided to the people of Ontario.

Those activities include restructuring the ministries, a most important activity that they've been involved with over the last two years, to ensure that services are given but that the costs of each and every ministry, each and every board and commission, each and every entity on this list which is required to give a reason, each and every one of those is accomplished in an affordable fashion to deal with the $10-billion, $11-billion, $12-billion deficits that we faced in the province of Ontario through many years, to deal with $100 billion of debt.

Those ministries, those agencies and commissions have been busy restructuring themselves, making themselves more efficient, bringing in their business plans, providing service to the people of Ontario.

I will further indicate to you, Mr Speaker, that we have become aware of this situation. We are in the process of communicating with each and every one of them. Notwithstanding how busy they are, notwithstanding that they have absolutely excellent reasons for where they are today, still we're going to insist that all of these reports be brought forward in due course to the satisfaction of this House.

The Speaker: To the government House leader, you're giving me your undertaking that those are all of the outstanding reports that are due to this Legislature?

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, to my knowledge, I've been presented with this list and it has been put to me that this is a complete list of all the outstanding reports. I will submit it to the Clerk's department at this point.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two things: First of all, on the first point of order that I raised with you, which was with respect to the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, the minister did make reference to that, but I would point out that the filing requirement that is contained in the legislation specifically refers to the Minister of Health and that the standing order dictates that the appropriate minister must give reasons to the Legislature. I do not believe we have heard reasons from the appropriate minister. We have not had satisfaction and it is still within order to raise these to your concern.

Second, although we've not been provided with the list that the government House leader just read from -- I tried to follow along closely -- specifically I'd like to raise a concern again. It's under the same section. It's with respect to a report from the Facility Association.

As you know, we've had changes to automobile insurance legislation in this province that directly impact on the use and the utilization of the Facility Association, and the act's filing requirement says, "The members of the board of directors and the officers and employees of the association shall furnish the commissioner with such information and financial statements with respect to the association and the plan..., and the commissioner shall make an annual report to the Minister of Financial Institutions on the affairs of the association and the minister shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled on that was in 1990-91, and that was tabled on May 6, 1993. I am raising a concern specifically with you now with respect to the annual report outstanding for 1991-92. It is not on the list, as far as I am aware, and I have a couple of others that I would like to review with you.

Most particularly, I also want to raise the point that the reasons for the report not being tabled with the House, by the filing requirement in the act, must be given by the appropriate minister. In this case, the minister named in the filing requirement is the Minister of Financial Institutions.

I would like to proceed with a number of others, some of which the government House leader has touched on. Those which he is directly responsible for I certainly won't raise, but where other ministers are involved, I would like the opportunity to raise what I believe is a legitimate point of order.

The Speaker: To the member for Beaches-Woodbine, 39(

a) speaks to filing the report or filing the reasons why you're not filing the report. What we have here is the government House leader speaking on behalf of the ministers, not on the reasons they couldn't file the report or not by filing the report, but by simply saying, "We, the government, undertake to hear this as a point of order" -- your earlier ones -- "and we also want to give notice to the House that we will be providing reasons or the report in the very near future."

You don't need the minister to stand up and say that; you need the minister to give you either the report or give you the reasons why they can't file the report. The government House leader is in order when he stands in his place and tells this House, "We take that notice. All these reports we take and give you notice that we will be filing reasons and the report in the very near future," and at that time the affected minister will have to be here to either file the reasons or the report.

On your Facility report: I don't believe that was part of the report offered up by the government House leader. I take that as notice and I will advise the minister to report back.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Further to the ruling that you've now made and the appreciation that we did our best to follow the number of reports the minister outlined, I believe I have one that was not mentioned. We are trying to get the list so that if we do raise any that have been mentioned, we're not duplicating that effort. But under 39(

a) I would like to point out that I did not hear the --

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I'm just going to direct the Clerk to make copies and provide them for each caucus.

Mr Christopherson: Would you like us to take a few minutes to review that or do you want hear my point of order right now?

The Speaker: I think I'd better hear your point of order right now.

Mr Christopherson: On the French Language Services Act, 1990, the filing requirements are, "The minister, after the close of each fiscal year, shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the Office of Francophone Affairs and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session." It is my understanding we have not yet received the report from the years 1995 and 1996. I would ask that you bring that to the attention of the government.

The Speaker: Done.

Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I appreciate that you have clarified for me that the Facility Association was not read out by the minister. Therefore, I would like to draw to your attention, again under 39(a), that we are also concerned, particularly given the legislative changes that have happened with respect to the Facility Association review going on, that we have not seen the outstanding report for 1992-93, nor have we seen any reasons given by the appropriate minister for delay of such. I would appreciate it if you would draw that report also to the attention of the appropriate minister.

The Speaker: Done.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, I also believe there is a further valid point of order on an outstanding annual report which I didn't hear in the list from the government House leader, and that deals with the annual report of the Ontario Telephone Service Commission.

The filing requirement under the Telephone Act is, "The commission shall, after the close of each calendar year, make an annual report upon the affairs of the commission to the member of the executive council to whom the administration of this act is assigned" -- and I believe it's assigned to the minister of culture, tourism and recreation -- "who shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

I won't repeat standing order 39(a), which we have quoted from already, but this report, at least as it relates to 1994, I believe has not been filed and I would ask that you convey to the minister the concerns of this House that the required report has not been filed.

The Speaker: Did you read the pertinent legislation when you read that in, about reporting of the telephone commission?

Mr Silipo: I did, yes.

The Speaker: There's still actively a telephone commission?

Ms Lankin: No, but the outstanding reports still need to be filed. Do you want me to tell you? I used to be the minister.

Mr Silipo: I quoted, sir, from the Telephone Act. I can tell you further to that point that the last report was tabled on June 29, 1994, and that was for 1993. There has been no report filed for 1994.

Mr Martin: In the same context, Speaker, I have a report that wasn't mentioned by the House leader in his presentation to you a few minutes ago. It's in keeping with the previous point of order, which calls for ministries of the government of Ontario as well as government agencies, boards and commissions accountable to the Legislature, through the ministers of the cabinet, to report. It falls under the Insurance Act, 1990. The filing requirement is, "At least once every two years, the minister shall table a report before the assembly in respect of the adequacy of no-fault benefits in setting out changes made to the no-fault benefits

schedule since the last report and changes that are proposed to the no-fault benefits

schedule at the time of the report."

The last report in this instance, a report on the no-fault benefits

schedule and notice of proposed changes to the schedule, was filed on June 12, 1992. I'm speaking in particular reference to the annual report of 1993-94, which has not yet been submitted to this House. I am not aware that the appropriate minister has provided the House with an explanation for this delay. I request that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not in fact been filed.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is looking for a report that doesn't exist. If he had watched the Legislative Assembly over the last year or so, he would have realized that

section of the act was repealed when the Automobile Insurance Rate Stability Act came into force last year. I would encourage him to pay a little bit more attention to his background studies. In fact, I believe those reports have been filed with the House, and I will undertake to get them to him if he hasn't had that research from his own people.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Speaker, on the point that the minister raises: The minister ignores the fact that my colleague from Sault Ste Marie was referring to a year when the act was still in place and there should have been a report filed. According to the act, I understand it's the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relation who is responsible for making the report available and for giving the explanation; not the minister for privatization or whatever he is.

Ms Lankin: When the government House leader was reading off the long list, and although there's a copy here, I haven't yet seen it -- others are looking at that -- he made reference to the Wilfrid Laurier University Act, the filing requirement which says, "The board of governors shall make an annual report, including an audited financial statement, to the Minister of Colleges and Universities," which would now be the Minister of Education and Training, and the same requirements that they must be submitted to the LG in Council and laid before the assembly.

He specifically made reference to the report for 1995-96. I would point out to you that I actually had already risen on a point of order and had made reference to that specific year. When the minister read that one, he did not list any other years. I would like to raise a concern of the report --

The Speaker: For 1996, he did list.

Ms Lankin: The report hasn't been audited --

The Speaker: We recorded at the clerks' table that he listed 1993-96.

Ms Lankin: Then I would raise a concern with respect to 1992.

The Speaker: May I stand, though? I want to deal with the nub of this.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Agriculture, I think it's better if we just not heckle at this point in time. I appreciate what is going on. I would ask that the third party take their legitimate points of order and list the ones that you have left. I will hear them and direct the ministers to respond to those points of order. If you all have different ones, then I suggest you stand individually and list the ones you have left and I'll be happy to refer them to the ministers and ask that they report back.

It obviously will facilitate a speedier process. I understand that may not be the idea, but with the greatest respect, it seems to me that if I let you stand up individually and list whatever ones you have left, you can do that one at a time through the caucus and then we can move on.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, the difficulty with your suggestion is that we have been provided by the table with one copy of the minister's list and we did try to follow it through when he gave it orally. It is a little difficult for us to comply with your suggestion at this point because there are some who believe that they may have particular reports that were not referred to by the minister. We've already had a couple of examples of that.

The minister can give his assurances that his list covers them all, but the fact is that we don't know that it covers them all.

The Speaker: Okay, member for Algoma, then I will give you the latitude of listing all of them. Whether or not they were covered by the government House leader, you may in fact list all of them so you'll be certain that you won't miss any. That should solve the problem.

Mr Wildman: All right. I have a point of order regarding standing order 39(

a) which relates to the Education Act: The minister did say the Ministry of Education Act, but I didn't hear if he listed the particular years about which I'm concerned. The outstanding reports of the Education Act which the minister is required to provide at the close of each fiscal year to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the immediately preceding fiscal year have not been provided for 1994-95 or 1995-96.

The Speaker: Is that all, member for Algoma?

Mr Wildman: The Planning and Implementation Commission of the Ministry of Education under the Education Act: "The commission" -- that is the Planning and Implementation Commission -- "shall make an annual report to the minister and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report was 1991-92, which was tabled on December 13, 1993. So the question is, where are the reports for 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96?

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: I have not reviewed this against the list, so the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry -- I raise with you concerns with respect to the report from 1995-96. The last report that was actually tabled was the 1992-93 annual report, which was tabled on March 16, 1994. I would like to raise concerns with respect to the outstanding reports for 1993-94 and 1994-95. I believe you have already instructed me about the Wilfrid Laurier University, all years, so I will skip that one.

I'd like to raise a concern with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board Act. The filing requirement: "The board shall, after the close of each calendar year, make an annual report upon the affairs of the board to the Attorney General who shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the 1990-91 annual report. That was tabled on August 23, 1991. I wish to bring to your attention my concern with respect to the outstanding reports of 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Also under standing order 39(a), I would like to raise my concern with respect to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Labour Act. The filing requirement says, "The minister shall after the close of each fiscal year submit an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

The last report which was tabled was the 1992-93 annual report. That was tabled on February 23, 1995. There are outstanding reports of 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Also with respect to standing order 39(a), I would like to raise a concern with respect to the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Attorney General Act. The filing requirement reads, "The Attorney General after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

The last report tabled was the 1993-94 annual report, which was tabled on January 31, 1995. I wish to raise concerns with respect to the outstanding reports of 1994-95 and 1995-96.

I have raised with you concerns about the Facility Association, which is under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, 1990, the filing requirement being, "The members of the board of directors and the officers and employees of the association shall furnish the commissioner with such information and financial statements with respect to the association and the plan..., and the commissioner shall make an annual report to the Minister of Financial Institutions on the affairs of the association and the minister shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

As I indicated to you, the last report tabled was for 1990-91, and that was tabled on May 6, 1993. I have already raised concerns with respect to the reports from 1991-92 and 1992-93. I wish now to raise concerns with respect to the reports from 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. That is the entirety of the list that I have at this point.

Mr Silipo: Speaker, taking your suggestion or your direction, I would like to bring to your attention a number of annual reports which I believe have not been filed nor are included in the list that the government House leader has indicated.

One in particular deals with the filing requirement under the Municipal Act, which states: "The treasurer of every municipality shall in each year within the time prescribed by the ministry make a return to the ministry on forms provided by it of such information and statistics with respect to the financial affairs, accounts and transactions of the municipality as the ministry may prescribe, and every such return shall be transmitted by registered mail.... The ministry shall cause to be prepared annually a tabulated statement of the returns which shall be laid before the assembly."

I realize that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may have been busy with other activities, but the truth, as I understand it, is that the last report filed was the 1994 Municipal Financial Information report. That was tabled on January 7, 1997. But reports are still outstanding with respect to the year 1995. I would draw that to your attention and ask that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

I further would like to draw to your attention the 1995 annual report of the Ontario Telephone Service Commission. I noted earlier that the 1994 report of that commission had not been filed. The 1995 report has, to my understanding, also not been filed, and that of course is a requirement of the Telephone Act.

The filing requirement stated under that legislation is, "The commission shall, after the close of each calendar year, make an annual report upon the affairs of the commission to the member of the executive council to whom the administration of this act is assigned" -- my understanding is that that is the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation -- "who shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

That relates to the 1995 annual report. I would ask that you convey to the minister the concerns of the House that the required report has not been filed.

I believe, following the Speaker's request, that, from the list I have, covers the outstanding annual reports.

Mr Laughren: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I mentioned earlier in these proceedings that the reports under the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, 1995-96, had not been tabled. As you are aware, the ministries, as well as their agencies, boards and commissions, are required to table annual reports in the assembly.

As a matter of fact, the standing order is very specific. It states that "ministers shall present all reports required by statute within six months of the close of the reporting period unless reasons for delay are given to the House."

I mentioned 1995-96, but I can tell you that the report for the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act has not been tabled for 1995-96, as I said earlier, but nor has it has been tabled for 1994-95 or 1993-94.

You know, as we do, that the filing requirement is very clear and states, "The books and accounts of the corporations to be audited by the Provincial Auditor or such other auditor as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate and such auditor shall make an annual report of the audit to the Treasurer, and the Treasurer shall table the report in the assembly if it is session or, if not, at the next session."

I also am concerned about the Ministry of the Solicitor General Act. As you know, ministries are governed under acts, and the Solicitor General was supposed to, "after the close of each year...submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next...session." The last report tabled, and this is surprising to me, was 1988, which means there's been no report tabled for either 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 or 1995. That of course is not appropriate nor acceptable, and I trust that will be looked after.

As well, we have the Law Foundation of Ontario, which operates under the Law Society Act. That report, I believe, has also not been tabled for the year 1995. It was tabled for 1994 on December 1, 1995. But the last year, 1995, should have been tabled by now, and it has not been done.

Finally, the College Relations Commission, which is still in existence, operates under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, and the commission is supposed to annually prepare a report on the affairs of that commission for the preceding year and the report should be tabled in the Legislature. The last report that was tabled was 1991-92, and that was tabled on June 24, 1994. There are still outstanding reports from the College Relations Commission for 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I don't understand why the government would not have tabled the report for the preceding years as well as 1995-96.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Mr Speaker, on your advice, I'm going to read out some of the reports I have an interest in. I'm not sure if they were read out or not. I did have a look at the list, but I forgot my glasses. I saw some of them and I just want to confirm these.

One is the Ontario Place Corp, and the act is the Ontario Place Corporation Act. The filing requirement says, "The corporation shall make a report annually to the minister upon the affairs of the corporation and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council," and that has not been done yet.

The last tabled report, the annual report for the year ending March 31, 1994, was tabled on April 16, 1997. The outstanding reports are -- and this is where I'm not sure of the dates which were read out here -- for 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Another one that I have a great deal of interest in is quite far behind, and that is the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture Act. The filing requirement is this: "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled for the Ministry of Citizenship was the 1992-93 annual report, tabled on March 25, 1994. The outstanding reports are for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I would appreciate hearing from the Minister of Citizenship and Culture why these reports have not been filed and if she could make those available.

Another one is the Board of Funeral Services, which we all in this place have an interest in, a great deal of interest, and the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, 1990. The filing requirements for this say, "The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations shall submit the annual report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled, the 1993 annual report, was tabled on July 27, 1994, but the outstanding reports are 1994 and 1995. I would ask the minister responsible for the Board of Funeral Services if he could make those very important reports available, and perhaps he could explain why they have not been filed yet.

My last one --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Well, the Board of Funeral Services is a very important report.

The Speaker: I would like to hear your last one.

Ms Churley: My last one is from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Health Act. The filing requirement: "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled, the 1992-93 annual report, was tabled on July 8, 1994. The outstanding reports are 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I realize the Minister of Health has been very busy, but I would suggest that he get these reports to us.

Mr Len Wood: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Standing order 39(a), as you've heard, states very clearly that there's a filing requirement under the Professional Engineers Act. I know the government House leader mentioned one of the reports that has been filed, but I didn't hear him mention the outstanding reports of 1995, 1994, 1993 and 1992. The last report that was filed, the 1991 report, was tabled on May 25, 1992. There's a concern on this side of the House that the reports are not coming forward.

I know that you would have a concern under 39(

a) as well, on the Ministry of Government Services Act, that there's a filing requirement: "The minister, after the close of each year, shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

I heard the government House leader mention one particular year, but the last one I have a record of is the 1991 annual report, which was tabled on September 29, 1992. So as to the 1995-96 report, I'm not aware that the minister has tabled that in the House or given an explanation of why it was not tabled. There's also concern about the 1994-95 report and the 1993-94 report, and also the 1992-93 report. It's a concern of the caucus that we would like you to look into this and make sure it is taken care of.

The Speaker: I appreciate that. Do you have any more?

Mr Len Wood: No. Thank you.

Mr Martin: Mr Speaker, I have a number of reports that haven't been tabled in my estimation, or at least it's my --

The Speaker: Let's hear them.

Mr Martin: Paying attention to the House leader, I didn't hear them reported. I'm slow.

The Speaker: Oh no, you're not. You can go ahead.

Mr Martin: It takes a little while. It's really important that the rules of order of this place be followed and that reports from agencies and ministries that are out there be tabled, so I have one from the Ministry of Natural Resources, under the Ministry of Natural Resources Act, that hasn't been tabled. The filing requirement: "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

The last report tabled under this act was the 1991 annual report, tabled on July 2, 1992. It's our understanding that there are outstanding reports for the years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, and it would be helpful to us if you were to send a message to that particular minister, the Minister of Natural Resources, that he have these reports tabled --

The Speaker: I appreciate that, yes.

Mr Martin: -- or if he can't have them tabled, that he give a reason for their not being tabled to the House so that we all are on the same page in that book.

The Speaker: I understand.

Mr Martin: Also, the Ontario Cancer Institute, under the Cancer Act, 1990. The filing requirement: "The institute shall after the close of each fiscal year make a report upon its affairs during the preceding year to the Minister of Health and every such report shall contain a financial statement" --

Mr Shea: You raised that one; he mentioned that.

Mr Martin: Yes, he mentioned it, but he didn't mention all of the years.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, I'd like you to direct your comments to me and what years you're concerned about with reporting of the Cancer Society.

Mr Pouliot: This is the Cancer Society.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: We're all on a waiting list, Speaker. The Cancer Society.

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, direct your comments through me. Do not listen to the heckles. I caution the member for High Park-Swansea.

Mr Martin: I was trying to be helpful to the member for High Park-Swansea and explaining to him --

The Speaker: I appreciate that. I'd just like to hear what the years you're concerned about are.

Mr Martin: I tried, member for High Park-Swansea, to be helpful to you, but anyway, to get back to the business at hand --

Mr Shea: I'll get back to you later.

Mr Martin: Okay. The filing requirement: "The institute shall after the close of each fiscal year make a report upon its affairs during the preceding year to the Minister of Health and every such report shall contain a financial statement certified by the auditor, showing all money received and disbursed by the institute during the preceding year" -- that's the year that went before.

"The Minister of Health shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly" -- that's us gathered here -- "if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled in this instance was the 1991 annual report, which was tabled on November 25, 1993. Our concern is --

Mr Shea: Were you the PA then?

Mr Martin: No, not in this particular ministry.

Our concern is that reports are outstanding for the years 1991-92 --

Mr Shea: That was your government, right?

Mr Martin: Yes -- the years 1992-93, 1993-94 -- now we're moving into a new government, which I believe is your government -- and 1994-95 and 1995-96. I would ask the Speaker to please ask of the government, and in this instance the Minister of Health, that he report back to the House why these reports have not been tabled. That would be, I believe, very helpful to all of us here. I think that's all for me.

The Speaker: Thank you so much.

Mr Christopherson: Further to your ruling, Speaker, the list of reports that I have concerns about in terms of not being tabled under 39(

a) would go as follows:

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications Act, 1990 -- the filing requirements are, "The minister after the close of each year shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the ministry and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the 1993-94 annual report, which was tabled on March 15, 1995, and the outstanding reports would be the years 1994-95 and 1995-96.

The next group of reports I have concerns about and would ask you to raise with the appropriate minister refer to the Registered Insurance Brokers Act. The filing requirements are, "The superintendent shall make an annual examination of the affairs of the corporation and shall report concerning the examination to the minister and the minister shall then lay the annual report of the corporation and the report of the superintendent before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last tabled report, Speaker, was the 1993 annual report. It was tabled on June 22, 1994, and I believe this House is still due the 1994 and the 1995 reports.

Further concerns that I have are with regard to the University of Western Ontario Act. The filing requirements for this particular act are: "The board of governors shall make a financial report annually to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in such form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the combined financial statements, 1991-92, and that was tabled on December 3, 1992. We are still awaiting the reports from 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

Next, Speaker, I draw to your attention my concerns around the filing requirements under the Huron College Act of 1975. Those filing requirements are: "The executive board shall make a financial report annually to the minister in such a form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report was tabled on October 21, 1992, and that was in the report and financial statements of April 30, 1992. We are still owed reports for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995.

Next, Speaker, I draw to your attention filing requirements under the Ontario Colleges of Art Act. Those requirements are as follows: "The council shall at the close of each fiscal year file with the Minister of Colleges and Universities an annual report upon the affairs of the college." Later it states, "The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the financial statements, May 31, 1992, and that was tabled on November 4, 1992. This House is still awaiting the reports of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I would ask you to bring that to the attention of the appropriate minister.

Next, Speaker, I have concerns about annual reports due under the Denture Therapists Act. The filing requirements there are, "The appeal board shall...submit an annual report on its activities to the minister which shall include such additional information as the minister may require and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The last report tabled was the 1993 annual report, which was tabled on February 9, 1995. We still await the 1994 and 1995 reports.

Further to a point of order I raised with you earlier under the French Language Services Act, 1990, you'll recall, Speaker, that the filing requirements are that: "The minister, after the close of each fiscal year, shall submit to the Lieutenant Governor in Council an annual report upon the affairs of the Office of Francophone Affairs and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

Speaker, as I raised with you earlier, the last report tabled was the 1993-94 annual report, which was tabled on March 27, 1995. I would bring to your attention that we are still awaiting the report of 1994-95.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish the honourable member for Hamilton Centre would get his facts straight. I have here a report which says, "Office of Francophone Affairs, Annual Report, 1994-95, 1995-96," and I would say that this member owes the staff of francophone affairs an apology. We have the goods right here.

Mr Wildman: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker: I know what your point of order is.

Ms Lankin: It hasn't been tabled.

The Speaker: Are you certain that has been tabled?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It has gone to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort York.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of personal privilege, sir.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's very true. I'm already listening to a point of order. I can't possibly take your point of privilege while I'm listening to a point of order. Point of order, member for Fort York, but I will wait to hear it.

Mr Marchese: Monsieur le Président, I only have a few acts to which I will refer.

The Independent Health Facilities Act, 1990: "The minister" -- as you know, under the filing requirements -- "shall annually prepare a report on the implementation of this act and submit it to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The annual report for the 20-month period ending December 31, 1991, was tabled on July 14, 1992. We still have outstanding reports for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.

The next act is the University of Waterloo Act. Under the filing requirement, the board of governors "shall make a financial report annually to the Minister of Colleges and Universities in such form and containing such information as the minister may require. The minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The financial statements, April 30, 1992, was tabled on November 4, 1993. We're still waiting for the reports of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

The next act is the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act. Under the filing requirement, the adjustment fund "shall be audited by the Provincial Auditor who shall make an annual report to the Treasurer of Ontario, and the Treasurer shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if it is not, at the next...session."

The financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1994, was tabled on November 9, 1994. We're still waiting for reports of 1994-95 and 1995-96.

The next act is the Ministry of Treasury and Economics Act. Under the filing requirement, "The public accounts for each fiscal year shall be prepared under the direction of the Treasurer and shall be delivered to the Lieutenant Governor and laid before the assembly not later than the 10th day of the first session held in the following...year."

The 1994-95 public accounts, volumes 1, 2 and 3, were tabled on October 2, 1995. We're still waiting for the report of 1995-96.

Another act is the Health Disciplines Act. The filing requirement for that is that: "The board shall...submit an annual report on its activities to the minister which shall include such additional information as the minister may require and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."

The 1993 annual report was tabled on February 9, 1995, and the outstanding reports are of 1994 and 1995.

The final one, Mr Speaker, you'll be happy to know, is the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, 1990. The filing requirement for that is, "The minister shall, as soon as possible, after the end of each year, prepare and cause to be laid before the Legislature a report on the administration and enforcement of this act for that year."

The 1991-92 annual report was tabled on July 14, 1992, and we're waiting for the other reports of 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96. I thank you for your attention, Mr Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Minister, yesterday I took some time to point out to you that you have a serious credibility problem in Ontario when it comes to education. I said that, based on your record, Ontarians don't trust you with the education of their children, and of course you said I was wrong.

Today we learn that your own poll shows that you, Minister, have the least credibility of all the players in the education system. People said that when it comes to students, parents, teachers, trustees and you, it was you who earned the ranking of the least credible of all. On top of that, the government paid $53,000 to find that out. I told him that yesterday for free.

Minister, I'm going to give you another chance. Given the long list of unanswered questions about your school takeover bill and given the damage you have already done to classrooms and students, tell us once again, why should you be trusted with our children's education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): It's odd to have in this House the Leader of the Opposition represent something in what I think is a fair way, and I believe he just did. The poll does indicate that among the bottom of the barrel in terms of public trust are politicians. That has been borne out in poll after poll, federally, provincially, in every province across this country for many, many years, and it's no different in Ontario. I believe that should be of concern to those of us who work in this Legislature.

I think one of the reasons that politicians are not held in much trust is because politicians say things like: "We have an obligation to consider it. We can't back away from the prospects of amalgamation. As Liberals, we're fiscally responsible. We've got to look at that when we talk about amalgamation."

The Leader of the Opposition was the person who made that quote, yet he has stood in this House day after day after day and attacked a bill that does just that. That's why the people of Ontario don't trust politicians, because people like the Leader of the Opposition flip-flop on this issue --

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

Mr McGuinty: I guess the minister doesn't have an answer, but I'll remind the minister that he was the one who cut education in this province by at least $500 million; he's the one who suggested that he could find another $1 billion in savings in education; he's the guy who forced 25 boards in Ontario to cut junior kindergarten; he's the guy who forced 23 boards to make cuts to special education; and he's the guy who forced boards to cut staff and increase class sizes. He's in the driver's seat. I'm not in the driver's seat.

Trust is something you earn and here's a way you can start to earn it: Tell us how much you plan to spend on our students once your school takeover bill is passed. Can you do that very simple thing, Minister? Will you give us right now your funding formula for schools once Bill 104 is passed?

Hon Mr Snobelen: It's nice to see the Leader of the Opposition return to his normal form of distorting things.

The Speaker: "Distortion" I think is a word that is too closely aligned with "misleading" etc. I would ask you to withdraw "distortion."

Hon Mr Snobelen: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Let me just say that the Leader of the Opposition is wrong in his assertions that he has just put before this Legislature. I won't take them on one at a time; he can keep asking, if he'd like, and I can take those on.

What we have done as a government is what we promised the people of Ontario in the Common Sense Revolution. We continue to build a better system of education. We continue, in direct answer to his question, to fix the problems left by your government, left by the previous government, in a funding model that no one likes, that no one has recommended, that treats students in Ontario as second-class citizens based on where they live. We think that's unfair.

We are bringing in an allocation model that will fund every student's need in this province of Ontario, fund them fairly and give them an equal opportunity. We intend to consult broadly with the education sector and make sure that our allocation model is one that will meet the needs of those individual students, because we believe in listening to the people of Ontario, particularly listening to the people who deliver education.

Mr McGuinty: I'm going to allow the minister to pick whichever of these he feels represents a distortion, to use his word: Did he or did he not cut education in this province by at least $400 million? Did he or did he not suggest that he could find another $1 billion in savings in education? Did he or did he not force 25 boards to cut junior kindergarten? Did he or did he not force 23 boards to make cuts to special education? Did he or did he not force boards throughout the province to cut staff and increase class sizes?

This man asks for our trust, but I tell you, entrusting the welfare of our children to him would be like you, Speaker, asking Dr Kevorkian to look after your mother and make sure she's okay.

One more time, Minister, prove to us today that you're worthy of the trust of people who are involved in education in this province by telling us you're going to restore funding for adult education, guidance, junior kindergarten and all the other programs --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: That is one of the saddest performances I've seen in this Legislature. The answer to your question, whatever it is, is no, that this government has kept its promises to the people of Ontario. We are moving forward now to have higher standards --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury and member for Kenora, please come to order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: There is a reason that is such a sad performance; that is, once again it misrepresents what's been done by this government, misrepresents the directions of this government, and it also interjects what I think is just a complete misrepresentation of the facts as they are and what we need to do in education in the province of Ontario.

We need higher student achievement. It's not all right with this government that we have mediocre results from our students. We think we need to make investments in the classroom, we think we need to help teachers and we think we need to lift student achievement. We have to do that by having higher standards in each and every grade, by having a clear province-wide curriculum, by making the investment on behalf of taxpayers that will pay off in the lives of those students.

It's a serious subject for this government, one we're committed to, and we're getting on with that business with Bill 104 and other changes. I'm proud of our record on education and I'm willing to debate it anywhere in this province with the Leader of the Opposition.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, yesterday I asked you why, in this time of crisis for children in Ontario who are having to contend with abuse, you had allowed 340 full-time staff to be laid off from Ontario's children's aid societies, and you had no answer.

According to the Child Welfare League of America, a child protection worker's caseload should consist of a maximum of 17 active families per month. That's an absolute maximum. Obviously, I made the assumption that you had laid off those 340 workers because workers in Ontario could deal with the caseloads they presently have.

Let me tell you what I found. I found that in your own riding of Durham, the average case worker handles 28 families a month. The absolute maximum is 17, but the children's aid society workers in your riding handle 28. That's 64% more than the established maximum. I also found out that the children's aid society in your riding has laid off 27 staff members because of funding cuts.

Minister, I want you to tell me that in the upcoming budget you are going to, at minimum, return the $17 million you stole from Ontario children's aid societies.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member across the way well knows, the children's aid societies make the decisions. They are empowered to make the decisions in terms of what their staff should be, what their budget allocations are. This government does not dictate or say to children's aid societies the number of people they should be employing.

Second, as the honourable member is well aware, we have a special contingency fund for children's aid societies which has been there for many years and which continues to be there so that if they do need extra assistance, it is there to help support them.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, the ultimate responsibility for these children lies with you, and nobody else should feel that weight in quite the same way you should. Nobody is here to ensure more than you are that Ontario's kids grow up safe from neglect and abuse. By not restoring funding to CASs, by not offering them the tools they require to protect kids, you're sentencing those kids, you're condemning them, to lives of misery and pain.

Listen to this: 80% of all female prisoners today in Ontario jails are victims of child physical or sexual abuse. Child prostitution prevention programs for ages nine and up find that 99% have a history of child abuse. Suicide prevention programs find that children with a history of sexual abuse are 10 times more likely to attempt suicide.

These kids need you, and they need you now. They need you to stand up for them and give the children's aid societies the tools they need: money, staff and, most important, your own undying support.

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

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member well knows that throwing money at any problem is not going to solve any problem. What the children's aid workers are saying, what the families are saying, what the police and the court workers and the professionals are saying is that we need better information supports for the staff, we need better training for the staff, we need resources that are in the right place at the right time, we need better intervention and prevention.

All of those things this ministry either has under way or has already done, and we are looking forward to the recommendations of the task force when they are complete so we can continue to improve the system.

Mr McGuinty: Today in Ontario several children will be physically abused. They'll be punched or kicked, they'll suffer cigarette burns, they'll be violently shaken, they'll be sexually assaulted, and most of them will be under the age of five. These kids don't know your name -- they don't even know you exist -- and they don't understand anything about this Parliament and of course none of them are going to contact us. But if you and I could talk to them and if we could make them understand and were able to bring them into a room, what do you think they would ask for? Do you think they'd ask for adequate funding to make them safe or do you think they'd ask for a tax cut?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, I appreciate the honourable member's concern about this. Every Minister of Community and Social Services, whether Liberal, NDP or Conservative, has faced the challenge of children in care or supervision of children's aid societies who die. I don't think it's important to sit here and argue over whose watch or whose fault. I think it's important to ask, how did the system fail these children?

What the recommendations from the task force report and the coroners' testimony have indicated, what the Toronto Star articles have indicated, is that there are many problems in the system. Those problems need to be addressed, and that is why this government is doing what it is doing for more money for intervention and prevention, why we're doing more investment in better tools for those workers to support them, all kinds of steps that we are taking to improve this system, because the system has indeed failed these children. We quite recognize that. I'm not going to sit here and play political games with the member opposite. I want to get on with the job of fixing the system.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question was for Monsieur Leach, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but I understand he couldn't wait and had to leave, so I'll direct my question to the government House leader.

Minister, your attempt to get a backroom deal with handpicked municipal leaders isn't working, not as far as we can tell. Your dealings are so secret that you won't even tell the Association of Municipalities of Ontario when the meetings are being held, yet all your backroom dealing will cost taxpayers well over $1 billion in public health costs, long-term care, housing costs and social service costs. People don't want this. All over Ontario nobody wants it. Even your own allies, like the board of trade, don't want this. You are about to whack homeowners and tenants with a big tax increase. Do you believe this is wise?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I certainly wouldn't believe it would be wise to hit any property owners in the province with a tax increase. That's why we're headed exactly in the opposite direction.

What we fully intend to happen as the result of the services being rationalized between two levels of government, some services going to the municipal level, the huge cost of education coming off the property tax -- that represents well over $5 billion this year and it's going up at the rate of over 5% a year, so it will soon be $6 billion that's been taken off the property tax of residential taxpayers. That, in my submission, will allow the municipalities the room to take over the other services. In fact, what we should see because of that and because of other tools municipalities are getting --

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

Hon David Johnson: -- we will see a reduction in property taxes in the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Durham East, thank you for your intervention, but heckling is out of order.

Mr Marchese: We are not going to see reductions in property taxes. The minister says we're taking education off the property tax, but he's about to whack them with additional costs connected to housing, child care, welfare, long-term care, public health and so many other services that you're downloading to the municipal taxpayer, to the property homeowner and the tenants.

You have, with pompous authority, forced the megacity against the express wishes of Metropolitan Toronto, and you're going to do the same on the downloading, only this time it is every single taxpayer across Ontario who will pay. If some of your backbenchers look nervous from time to time, it's because it's going to cost their constituents over $400 per household; they know that, and you know that.

Civil servants tell us that's just the beginning. The transition costs, costs you have not accounted for, will amount to over $229 million, and that does not include severance costs. Minister, why should taxpayers pay over $229 million in --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Management Board chair?

Hon David Johnson: I would say there's one important word in this whole exercise, and that word is "accountability." What is happening is that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has come forward with a proposition whereby the accountability rests with a level of government. Library services, for example, which were partially funded by the province and partially by municipalities, will now be funded by municipalities; total accountability will rest there. Police services, partially funded municipally, partially funded provincially; total accountability at the municipal level.

The cost of education will be totally taken off the residential property tax; total accountability will go to the province of Ontario.

What happens is a basic principle of government: When you have the accountability, you have efficiency and you have effectiveness, and those who steward that particular budget do a better job of it, and costs go down and the service level goes up. That's exactly what we'll get when this new disentangled system is put in place next year.

Mr Marchese: People expected you to take the costs of welfare off the municipal taxpayer. That's clarity. They did not ask you to pay for the long-term care through the property tax, they did not ask you to pay for housing through property tax, they did not ask you to pay for welfare through the property tax. They didn't ask you to do any of that. That was the clarity that municipalities wanted, and you have confused them now with a greater burden, and not only confused them, you have added an extra burden to the taxpayer, to the homeowner and to the tenant.

Ask your caucus members what this will mean to them, because each and every one of those homeowners is going to be paying over $400. They are nervous, and they should be, because that is the implication of your download. If you ask them, you will find that they will urge you not to do this. Will you withdraw this bill that's going to increase property taxes for everyone across Ontario, or are you going to be foolhardy and not listen to that either?

Hon David Johnson: I would say to the member opposite that there is already welfare on the property tax. There is already a cost-sharing formula. Welfare today is on the property tax in various formulas. Health care today: Part of health care is on the property tax, public health. Housing: A portion of housing is already on the property tax today. What is being proposed here is not new. What is being proposed is a more accountable formula, a more accountable system.

Beyond that, I will say that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is proposing a permanent $1-billion fund to assist municipalities and a restructuring capital fund of $800 million to assist municipalities during this transition period. This will be a more accountable system. It will work. It will result in lower property taxes.

MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP, CULTURE AND RECREATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. This question is about broken promises. In a recent

article in the Hamilton Spectator, staff from your office indicated with respect to your government's promise to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and I'm quoting from that article, "that the government is not sold on the value of an overarching act and that the legislation might be impractical," and further, "that instead of a law, the government is looking at general policy." This is despite Mr Harris's explicit, in-writing commitment to persons with disabilities that there would be an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Today I received further evidence of this broken promise, and this is a leaked cabinet document from your ministry. It's entitled "Overview of Citizenship Directions." It forms part of your ministry's submissions to Management Board for estimates. In that, with respect to access, it indicates that you're moving from barrier-free access to community services for seniors and persons with disabilities to barrier-free within the equal opportunity plan, voluntary. Why are you breaking your promise to enact a law, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): In answer to the honourable member's question, let me remind the honourable member what the Premier did say. What the Premier said was that we as a government are willing to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within the financial goalposts of this government and that we would be willing to do it in our first year. We have not broken any such commitments; in fact, we are still working with the disabled community to bring some kind of framework forward to protect the interests of Ontarians with disabilities.

Ms Lankin: Well, I have a letter here from the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee to you which doesn't indicate that they think you're working with them, and I have a leaked cabinet document in which your priorities for 1996-97 and 1997-98 are set out. Nowhere does it mention that you are working on an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It is not in your priorities. It is not in your ministry work plan as set out here.

Furthermore, it indicates that you are looking at moving away from things like distinct programs targeted on prevention of violence against women with disabilities and also racial minority women, where you had two distinct programs. That says you're moving to program rationalization. Despite the fact that the minister responsible for women's issues said there would be no cuts, you're going to move away from distinct programs.

Also, we've had a court ruling in the last week that has questioned what is going on with the declaration of mental incompetence for persons with disabilities, because you have done away with rights advisers. There's nowhere in this work plan and in your priorities that says that you're going to help get rights advice for these people.

Why are you abandoning persons with disabilities? It is clear throughout this leaked document. Minister, stand up for those --

Hon Ms Mushinski: Let me reassure the honourable member that my government remains committed to removing barriers for persons with disabilities. The latest initiative we have undertaken is to contract with the Roeher Institute to conduct an evaluation study of the overall impact to date and the implementation costs of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Once we get the results back to that, we'll have a better idea of how to framework an Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Minister, you can continue not to answer the questions, but I think that speaks volumes. I remind you that this leaked document that comes from your own ministry is entitled Overview of Citizenship Directions. It sets out your priorities in the ministry for the next two years. My colleague from Beaches-Woodbine has already mentioned what's been missing or what is missing from that document.

I want to refer you to another thing that is also very clearly missing from the citizenship priorities, and that is that there is no reference to any anti-racism activities which have traditionally been within your ministry. We know that your government has ended the Anti-Racism Secretariat. There's nothing to replace it. There's no reference to anti-racism, the programs, to any kinds of initiatives. There is nothing that deals with how you are going to carry out your responsibility to fight racial discrimination.

The document, quite frankly, Minister, lays bare the depth of your government's commitment to anti-racism initiatives. It just isn't there. There is no commitment. So can you tell us why there's nothing in your priority document on anti-racism?

Hon Ms Mushinski: In response to the honourable member's question, let me tell you that racism and discrimination are against the law in this province. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is the body to deal effectively with incidents of racism and discrimination, and we are strengthening the role of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If anyone is committed to eradicating racism and discrimination from this province, this government is.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, clearly the opposition, the people of Ontario, the students, the teachers and the parents of Ontario feel that Bill 104 will continue the erosion of quality education in Ontario. There's absolutely no question about that.

I read with interest today an editorial where you pledged to regulate smaller class sizes in elementary grades in Ontario. I read with interest a response to a concerned parent in Ontario where you said, "Studies indicate that smaller class sizes do not affect the quality of education after grade 3."

Minister, I have 30 years in elementary schools, so I know that elementary school goes from JK to grade 8. What do you mean by regulating class sizes and when are you going to regulate them?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): My education record has been criticized, but I want to assure the member opposite that I did not spend 30 years in elementary school.

I do think that class size is a concern and I don't want to make light of that. I believe we have to have a look at how we can control class size. There was a growth in class size in Ontario as a result of the social contract. That's a document that deliberately set out to increase class size in the province. That's not all right with my colleagues and it's not all right with myself.

We are looking at ways that we can assure the quality of education, and one of those quality measures, particularly in the early grades, is class size. So we are now looking at and examining with other people in education how we might do that and still retain some flexibility at the local level.

Mr Bartolucci: There are some places a minister shouldn't go, and talking about spending 30 years in elementary school is not one of them. I spent eight as a student and the rest as a teacher, so I would suggest to you that we not compare records about schooling.

Let me tell you, you have the process already. We have Bill 110, the School Class Sizes Act, which has received support from all three parties, that has been referred to the social development committee. I want to know, when will you tell your House leader that you want that bill called to committee so that we can debate in a meaningful way smaller class sizes?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the honourable member for clarifying his earlier statement.

We are looking at the private member's bill. Certainly the intent of it is consistent with our intent. However, I have talked to principals and others in our school system who want to make sure that whatever way we regulate class size works for them from a scheduling point of view; that we don't put a regulation forward or part of legislation that will not allow them the kind of local flexibility they need. As principals have pointed out to me, if they don't have some flexibility in local scheduling, they often have split classes, and there are those who believe that's not good for the education of children.

We're talking to people who are in the classrooms, to people who are in charge of making the education system work. We want to make sure that whatever regulations we bring forward work in their best interests and the students' best interests. So we'll continue to do that, and I thank you for bringing it forward today.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): If scheduling is the problem, we'd be quite willing to have it brought to committee immediately. Whatever you like; we're willing to go that way today.

EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Education and Training. It's in regard to the draft guidelines for the so-called Education Improvement Commission. One of the amendments the government made to Bill 104 was to remove the EIC's retroactive approval of school boards' 1997 budgets.

The draft guidelines quote the bill and say with regard to the question of reserve funds, "From the day Bill 104 receives royal assent to December 31, 1997, an existing board shall not transfer money between or among reserves or reserve funds or change the purpose or designation of a reserve or reserve fund without prior approval of the commission."

However, immediately under that, in the guidelines, the EIC says, "From 1997, reserve funds and reserves for working funds should remain at the levels reported in the boards' 1996 financial statements." In essence, the EIC is reinstituting the retroactivity --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mr Wildman: -- which isn't right, because they do it up to now or not --

The Speaker: Member for Algoma, we appreciate it. Thank you for your question. Minister of Education.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I find it surprising that the member for Algoma would rise on that matter today in this House. The member must have heard from people in the education community. There were trustees in this building today, there were parents in this building today, there were students in this building today who were pleading for the passage of Bill 104 because they want the Education Improvement Commission up and running.

They want to make a smooth transition from an old system where there were inequities in the funding to a new system where we focus our finances on the students and teachers in this province and where we have a fair funding model for each and every student.

Yet today the member for Algoma has, I believe, delayed the House beginning question period. They've delayed the passage of this bill, or at least attempted to delay the passage of this bill this day, I think; and in the past the filibuster on Bill 103 took up more time in this Legislature than your government spent in the last year of your government in this Legislature and in the proper legislative fashion. I find it absolutely unbelievable that you rise today --

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: In all of that verbiage there was no answer to the question. The minister has said to boards that they can neither cut programs nor increase property taxes this year. Some boards have decided that the only way they can accomplish this is by using their reserve funds to make up for the cuts in provincial grants.

The Lambton board of education is using $1.2 million from its reserve fund. The Sault Ste Marie board is considering using $1.5 million from reserves. Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board is using $1.5 million, half of its reserve fund. Other boards, the Sudbury board, the Windsor separate school board, the Fort Frances-Rainy River public board, the Carleton Board of Education, are all transferring reserve funds.

My question in relation to these guidelines from the Education Improvement Commission is: Are these boards going to find their budgets rejected and sent back by the Education Improvement Commission because they are dipping into reserve funds now?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let's be very clear about this. There are a number of boards across the province which have expressed to me the wish to have the Education Improvement Commission in place to help them in this transition, to answer those and many more questions. That's the purpose of the Education Improvement Commission. That's the reason we put that into that legislation. We've watched as other systems in Canada have moved from older systems to a new system and we want to make sure that we get this right and that the transition is smooth and doesn't affect students. That's why the EIC is in Bill 104.

There's one person in this House who has kept the Education Improvement Commission from being in place, from helping school boards and from answering those questions, and that's the member for Algoma. He should look in the mirror and ask himself that question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I rise in the House today with a question for the Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for privatization. As members in the House know, that minister is also responsible for the auto insurance portfolio.

Many seniors and hardworking constituents in Durham East have called me and they're very pleased with the changes our minister has made to the insurance industry. For instance, on April 18 there was a news release by the Ontario Insurance Commission indicating reductions in premiums of as much as 9%.

I also read recently in a news

article that between the insurance industry and the health care providers there are discussions ongoing with medical fee schedules. Perhaps you could explain to the members in the House today, Minister.

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): The member for Durham East is quite clear that this government's goal when we reviewed auto insurance was to reduce costs of auto insurance products so that we could have reduced premiums, stable premium bases for Ontario drivers.

Whi