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

January 29, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L153 - Wed 29 Jan 1997 / Mer 29 Jan 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EVINRUDE CENTRE

GOVERNMENT MAIL SERVICE

NATIVE ISSUES

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

EDUCATION REFORM

PROPANE PRICES

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REVIEW

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

TRUCKING SAFETY

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TUITION FEES

ACADEMIC TESTING

HAEMODIALYSIS

PROPERTY TAXATION

PETITIONS

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HIGHWAY 17

EDUCATION REFORM

HIGHWAY 17

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

USER FEES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION REFORM

TVONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'OBSERVATION DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Health and it relates to the funding of northern and remote hospitals. Minister, hospital CEOs in my riding believe that the small hospital funding subcommittee has not considered the unique and traditional role of remote hospitals. As the minister is aware, small hospitals are in many cases the primary provider of health care services in our communities. They operate ambulance services, community mental health programs, Meals on Wheels, alcohol addiction services, and the list goes on.

Hospital trustees would like to remind the minister that he has not taken into consideration the operating budgets of these community-based programs when calculating hospital administrative overhead percentages. They also are concerned that the minister has not provided them with his commitment to consider the range of services they provide to our communities before any budget cuts are announced. Northern and remote hospitals also want assurances they will be given the financial support required to enable them to continue to provide the health care services northern residents expect and deserve.

Minister, it is clear to all concerned that you and your government are not providing the necessary consideration to the uniquenesses of the north. I assure you that northwestern residents will not sit by while you reduce their health care services to pay for the tax cut for your Bay Street friends.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today the dictatorial hand of Mike Harris appears again, because later this afternoon we expect to be debating a closure motion on Bill 103, a motion that in its intent is going to shut down the process of debate on this bill here in this Legislature -- yes, finally allow for some hearings; yes, finally allow for those hearings to carry on beyond the referenda in Metropolitan Toronto; but also clearly set up in a way that will ensure the government really is not serious about listening to anything that will be said to it during this process.

If they were, they wouldn't have limited it, as they do in this motion, to one day only of third reading debate following the hearings. They would have allowed for ample time to deal with all of the good people who want to speak to this motion and they wouldn't have dilly-dallied on this as they have and come to this point of having to resort to a closure motion to deal with this.

We have been saying all along that it was important for us to get the bill out to committee, to allow people to be heard, but we've also been saying that it's important for this government to listen to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, who are going to get the chance at least in a referendum through the process of early March to be able to express their opinions.

We expect this government to listen and we will do everything we can to make sure it listens to the will of the people of Metropolitan Toronto on this very important issue.

EVINRUDE CENTRE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I would like to take this opportunity to inform all members of the House of the new, spectacular community centre opening in the city of Peterborough on February 1.

The Evinrude Centre is a state-of-the-art, twin-pad hockey arena that will serve the community well. For many years the demands on other recreational facilities to host various hockey and other venues have exceeded the supply of existing facilities. The provincial government made contributions towards this project under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program.

On February 1, the people of Peterborough will be welcoming my colleague the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, who has agreed to participate in the opening of this facility. Her presence at the opening will underscore this government's commitment to supporting local projects and initiatives that bring communities closer together.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all of the volunteers, with a personal thanks to Ken Armstrong and his fund-raising group, as well as all levels of government for contributing their time, resources and energy towards making the Evinrude Centre another tremendous addition to the community of Peterborough.

GOVERNMENT MAIL SERVICE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Today readers of the Toronto press learned that the government is considering privatizing the Legislature's internal mail system, a move that would put into question the future of its 122 employees. Sixteen of those employees are people with disabilities, who do an outstanding job in their own right. Their experience also proves the contribution others in their situation can make when given the opportunity to do so. In the last number of years this Legislature has made some progress in making sure that disadvantaged groups have achieved greater equity and representation in our labour force.

But I would like to caution against a return to past practices. We have seen that this government is firmly opposed to giving special consideration to those who have historically faced discrimination, and the recommendations of the Red Tape Commission reiterate its desire not to impose those considerations on the private sector.

Regardless of the final decision in this case, I ask the government to make a firm commitment to protecting the hard-won rights of its disabled employees who remain in the public sector and those who will be affected by a shift to the private sector.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Three weeks ago, on January 8 and 9, I took a trip along the coast to visit the constituents of Attawapiskat, Moosonee and Moose Factory. What I witnessed there was a lack of commitment from this government to help remote communities.

In Attawapiskat, for example, there is an urgent need for 200 homes. It is clearly unacceptable in the 1990s that some 20 people have to live under the same roof because of a lack of houses. The community has no recreation facilities at all to offer its youth, who represent two thirds of the population. Services like an arena would help keep the teenagers and young adults off the streets. With your help, they could start building an arena this summer.

It's a shame that Fort Albany and Kashechewan residents were left with no power for almost 48 hours last week, with the temperatures plunging to as low as minus 36 degrees Celsius overnight, and this is the second time this year. The installation of a power grid from Moosonee to Fort Albany, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat would solve the problem caused by obsolete generators and mechanical breakdown.

The previous NDP government showed leadership in dealing with native issues and, as far as we have seen, nothing good has come in the last 20 months from this government. While I recognize that the federal government plays a role in native issues, I want to stress that this government has been elected to represent each and every citizen of this province and to cooperate with the federal government to ensure the wellbeing of all the native communities within my riding.

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I had the great pleasure Sunday evening of attending the kickoff dinner of the 50th anniversary celebrations of India's independence, hosted by the Indo-Canadian Advisory Group, with my colleague the member for Scarborough East.

The countdown for the 50th anniversary of India's independence has begun and so too have the festivities to celebrate this historic event. The focal point of the Garland of Events will be the weekend of August 15, 1997, the 50th anniversary of the day India attained independence.

India's struggle for independence, though painful and prolonged, was remarkably peaceful because of the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of non-violence.

India was among the first nations to extract herself from the control of a colonial power and guide her own destiny according to the needs and wishes of her own people. India served as a model for other nations to follow in asserting their rights for self-governance.

Over the last 50 years, India has made remarkable progress internally and in the international arena. With recent economic restructuring and liberalization, India has become the fifth-largest economy in the world and second among developing countries.

I am fortunate to have a number of Indo-Canadian residents in my riding of Scarborough Centre, and on behalf of all constituents I want to congratulate them on this important milestone and wish them all the best for their Garland of Events. As well, I would ask every member of this House to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes and urge every member of the House to become involved in the celebrations.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Last night in High Park-Swansea we had an excellent example of the government's new method of parental involvement in their children's education. It was quite a spectacle to see the parents from the PTA of Annette Street Public School barred from getting into a meeting on education being held in their own school.

It was incredible that these parents were denied access to any meeting on education concerning their children. It was even more incredible that this meeting was not only with the MPP for the area but also with the Minister of Education and Training.

The meeting was to discuss the government's so-called reforms to education, but the parents of the school were deliberately left off the guest list and only a chosen few were there. Those were the people who agree with the government's agenda of catastrophic reforms to education. Clearly the member and the minister did not want to hear the views of constituents and parents who just might disagree with this government's agenda in education.

What is more amazing and even more frightful is that the Minister of Education closed the door on these parents. This is the same minister who claims to want to have more parental involvement. It is clear that this Minister of Education doesn't care about parent councils; that this Minister of Education doesn't care about parental ideas; that this Minister of Education doesn't care about parental concerns; that this Minister of Education doesn't care.

PROPANE PRICES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I've had a number of complaints over the last number of weeks from constituents in Algoma who are dependent upon propane for their heating. Propane in our area has gone up from approximately 43 cents a litre three months ago, three times over the last three months, to approximately 50 cents a litre today. Many senior citizens in rural parts of Algoma are dependent upon propane and have a difficult time meeting the increasing costs of this fuel.

I understand that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Environment and Energy do not have any legislation regulating the market price of propane. There is no regulation as there is with the price of natural gas or heating oil or electricity.

I'm told that last fall in the Midwest US there was a massive increase in propane supplies required to dry crops. As a result of that, there was an inventory shortage to refineries, and that resulted in a significant increase in the price. Also there was some speculation about the possible flow of crude oil from Iraq that affected the price.

It's obvious that if senior citizens are to be protected from gouging, there should be some regulation in Ontario.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): The largest international multisport event in 1997 takes place in Ontario next week: the world Special Olympics Winter Games. Two thousand athletes from 80 countries are attending. They're accompanied by 700 coaches, 6,000 volunteers and thousands of supporters and family members.

The Special Olympics provides children and adults with mental disabilities the opportunity to participate in sports training and athletic competition. Canada has a unique history with the Special Olympics. We were one of only two countries that participated in the first Special Olympics held in Chicago in 1968.

Today Special Olympics chapters exist in thousands of Canadian communities. Over the past 30 years the Special Olympics has grown into a world-class sports competition. The athletes are coming to Ontario for friendly competition after years of training, countless practices and gruelling drills. They worked hard to get here. Their families, coaches and volunteers have followed them down this arduous road of preparation.

The Special Olympics is a celebration of outstanding athletes and the true spirit of amateur sport. It is a unique sporting event that enriches the lives of everyone who is involved. The oath of the Special Olympics best describes the spirit they encompass: "Let me win. But, if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."

I encourage all Ontarians to show support for these very special, dedicated athletes from all over the world.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REVIEW

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I'm pleased to announce to the members of the House that the government is continuing to cut waste and duplication, improve service and save taxpayers' dollars in provincial agencies, boards and commissions. By taking action on task force recommendations on 62 operational agencies, the government is moving towards its target to save $220 million in taxpayers' dollars.

The government is moving to wind down the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp, which has not made a loan for almost 30 years, and has eliminated the Ontario Asset Financing Corp, inactive since it was created by the previous government in 1995.

These actions are among those recommended by the task force on agencies, boards and commissions, chaired by Bob Wood, the member for London South.

The task force report on 62 operational agencies sends a clear direction for the government. Ministries will carry out detailed analysis and planning to determine the best way to implement the task force's recommendations.

As you may recall, in May 1996 I reported to the members of the House on the results of the first phase of the task force review, dealing with advisory agencies. As a result of that review, the government is taking steps to streamline and eliminate advisory agencies.

This is the first time in decades that operational agencies in the province have been reviewed comprehensively.

Based on the task force recommendations, the government will:

Eliminate 12 operational agencies over the next two years;

Redesign the way 30 agencies, such as the Ontario Science Centre and the St Lawrence Parks Commission, deliver their services. Three of these agencies are immediately recommended as candidates for privatization, and those are the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre, Ontario Place Corp and Ortech Corp.

The government will also review 14 agencies to improve efficiency and effectiveness. These agencies include the Royal Ontario Museum and the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

Decisions on six agencies, including the Ontario Mental Health Foundation and the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation, are being deferred until completion of reviews that were already under way.

It may simply make better sense to further involve the private sector or other government levels in the way that the agency carries out its work.

Overall, the government is eliminating 20% of its 62 operational agencies and revamping 60% of the remainder. Many of these agencies have continued to exist for years at taxpayers' expense despite the fact that their work is complete, or their mandate is obsolete or they no longer provide value to the public.

The government is already acting on the task force's earlier recommendations to streamline or eliminate 37 of the 50 advisory agencies over the next two years. This, along with action to be taken on the operational agencies, will help us move towards a smaller and yet more efficient organization which spends taxpayers' dollars wisely.

The government has already identified more than $60 million in savings from operational agencies. We anticipate further savings once the detailed studies recommended by this task force are done and decisions made.

The government's decision to act on the task force report takes us closer to reducing spending on agencies, boards and commissions by $220 million.

I would like to commend Mr Wood and his task force for their thoroughness and hard work. Their review on operational agencies will result in less duplication, more efficiency and new and more flexible ways to deliver service.

With these decisions, the government is well on its way to fulfilling its throne speech commitment to put all agencies to the test of continued relevance and value to taxpayers for their money.

Finally, I will report back with further decisions concerning the third and final phase of the task force's review, focusing on regulatory and adjudicative agencies, which will be released shortly.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I would like to respond to the minister's release today of the government task force on agencies, boards and commissions, the report on their operational agencies. I can only surmise that the government must be feeling an awful lot of pressure on their megacity announcements and that is why they've thrown this red herring out, to try to deflect some of the concerns that are being expressed.

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole document because it was just delivered to me a few minutes ago, but after looking at it briefly, I find that there are some very strange things that this group has done because in many cases they've done nothing. What is happening is that they are setting out a smokescreen to get people talking and being concerned about what may or may not happen to them. They've announced several different agencies that should be eliminated.

Let me give you an example. They want to eliminate Innovation Ontario Corp. This indicates to me that this government has no idea what Innovation Ontario does and the role that it plays. When they talk about it they suggest that it shouldn't be in this business because there are private funds available, and that just isn't true; that's the reason they are in the business. There are lots of innovative ideas in Ontario that are not being able to get financed because of their risk value, but that's the role the government should play.

I have no problem whatsoever with the government getting out of things that can be done in the private sector and that shouldn't be done by government. But there are other things that the government should be doing, and they should be doing them because this is what gives us some competitive advantage, and Innovation Ontario is certainly one of those particular agencies.

I'm very concerned about a couple of other things that have happened. The Ontario Lottery Corp: I'm sure the minister will know that people in Sault Ste Marie are very concerned about what could possibly happen if the Ontario Lottery Corp was privatized. That's exactly the same thing as privatizing the casinos, but when you read the rationale -- and I just want to quote from the report. It says:

"The task force recommends the government review all aspects of the corporation's operations to find the most appropriate and cost-effective method of delivering the corporation's activities while staying within the province's legal obligations under the Criminal Code of Canada."

I would suggest that is a given, that is an absolute given, no matter what government is in power and what decision is being made. To single this out and say, "This is something that we're going to have delivered differently," sets up a concern that I think is unwarranted and that is going to create some problems for people who may automatically think that, because it is being tabled in this report, their jobs may be in jeopardy.

The same thing goes for Ontario Place. Ontario Place is not just a commercial enterprise. It was conceived by a previous Conservative government to serve a very special purpose for the people of Ontario. That may require some subsidization by the government. To decide that it should be turned over to the private sector and that the subsidy will be removed indicates that you're literally going to throw it to the wolves and if it survives, fine, and if it doesn't, that's the way the world turns and that's the way businesses operate.

I think we have an obligation to make sure that places like Ontario Place, which is a tremendous asset for the city and for this province, are kept viable, and if that means some government support, so be it.

The last thing I want to talk about is the elimination of the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. This is really ironic in that when Highway 407 was conceived and was put out to public tender the government of the day awarded it to a consortium that was very controversial at the time because of perceived undue influence. The whole premise behind that funding was that they would provide private financing. After they got the contract they came back to the government and the government agreed that they would, in fact, guarantee the funding. Now the minister is saying, "We're going to take a look and see how we can do that a different way."

You're going full circle, and I think that is setting up some problems. I would suggest that when the other shoe drops and you get into some other announcements, you don't fall into the same trap, and that you give this away to the private sector but do not give away the freedom from the obligations and that you don't get stuck with it.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): We know what's really at the basis of this report and this announcement today. We know that when the government talks about saving some $220 million in taxpayers' money they're going to save that by reducing services. You will recall one very clear example. It wasn't that long ago that this government said, when they cut the employment equity program, that they were going to divert some of that money into the Human Rights Commission. People are still waiting to see some of that money. We know we're never going to see it.

Today we see more clearly, as the government House leader indicated, what the direction of this government is. It clearly is towards privatizing. It's clearly towards privatizing a variety of services that have been, for very good reason, in the public realm for many years. Let's just talk about a couple of those.

The Ontario Lottery Corp -- which, by the way, isn't even mentioned. We have here a list of 12 operational agencies over the next two years that are going to be eliminated, and yet the minister in his statement doesn't even give us the courtesy of listing what those agencies are nor giving us a copy of the report so that we can see for ourselves what these agencies are.

In the privatization efforts, my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie has already raised in this House the kind of devastation that would occur in his community of Sault Ste Marie if the Ontario Lottery Corp disappears as a basic service in that area, and the impact will be felt throughout the province.

Another examples that we see here: the Ontario Place Corp. How fitting a symbol for this reform government that this institution, begun by another Conservative government, a real Conservative government, is now being disbanded by the Mike Harris government, being sold off to its friends.

Other examples are the Ortech Corp and the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre, where government and public funds have been going into building a world-class facility, and now this government is prepared to just hand it over to its friends. We know really that what's at the basis of this is exactly that. It's not enough that this government is doing everything in its power to ensure that its wealthy friends get richer as a result of the tax cut; it now wants to make sure it adds to that by giving them a few more gifts by selling off good corporations that have been providing good public service.

What I want to say to the government and to Mike Harris is that if they were really serious about actually cutting down waste and duplication, they could start by not implementing the two commissions that they're about to put on to the public of Ontario: the one that creates a trusteeship in Metropolitan Toronto and the second one, which creates a trusteeship on school boards across the province. You want to save money? You want to restore democracy to this province? Deal with those two commissions, disband those commissions that you've begun. Don't play around with these ones. Don't hand off these corporations to your rich friends, because people know what your agenda is all about.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): One thing the government isn't bragging about today is that it's also streamlining and eliminating women from agencies, boards and commissions. It seems that the Attorney General and the other government colleagues can't find experienced women to appoint to agencies, boards and commissions. Let's look at the facts here. Let's get it on the table today what's happening.

Last year the Ontario Municipal Board was chaired by Miss Helen Cooper. Now it's chaired by Mr Doug Colbourne. Last year the Ontario Human Rights Commission was chaired by Ms Rosemary Brown. Today it's chaired by Mr Keith Norton. And on and on. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the last year there's been a turnover of about 11 positions in the Circle of Chairs. This is a group of about 50 board chairs who meet monthly. In 1995, those 11 positions were held by three men and eight women. Now in 1997, these positions are held by nine men and two women.

The Attorney General has made a total of eight judicial appointments. Of these eight, one was a woman and one was an aboriginal man. What I find particularly offensive about how the Attorney General responded to this is he had the nerve to state that his decisions are based on merit. What the AG is implying is that he can't find qualified women to appoint as judges. This is the age-old excuse for not appointing women.

I find it offensive that the minister responsible for women's issues once again is not standing up in this House and condemning this. Where is she? Where is she at the table in defending the rights of women? Once again not there. Where are the rest of the women on cabinet? As this government is busy downsizing, streamlining, cutting these ABCs, they are not even taking a look at what is happening after years of our government and the governments before that trying to do everything they can to get more women involved and in top positions on these boards and commissions. They are being eliminated too. For shame.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Can I get some order just for a moment? Point of privilege, member for Fort York.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This morning I attended a very peaceful gathering of very mild-mannered but passionate people wanting very much to talk to either the Premier or the minister in charge of amalgamating the cities in Toronto. They were gathered here in the east wing on the second floor.

My privileges as a member have been hampered in my inability to meet and to escort some of these citizens around in order to give them that access they are entitled to. The Premier and ministers have a privilege and a right to refuse to meet with them, or to decide that perhaps they should chat and discuss whatever issue they came to talk to them about. Instead of that, what we had was the use of the police to cordon off the group in such a way as to prevent easy and free access to the building.

The police normally are used in a way to apprehend, to deal with matters of violence and to maintain peace and order, and I appreciate that, but to use the police in this manner so as to prevent easy flow and peaceful movement of ordinary citizens in my view is inappropriate. We should not be using the police in this way, and I argue that having them used in this way is a violation of the democratic rights of the citizens of Ontario.

What I would like from you, Speaker, is that you review this matter. I need to know who issued that order and on what basis the police were told to cordon off these people, to restrict their access, on what basis that action was necessitated, because in my presence there I did not see the need for the police to cordon off people in such a way as to prevent that free flow of movement of those citizens.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Another point of privilege, and perhaps fleshing it out a little bit, because I think it would be important for the Speaker to consider this other, related matter at the same time. I was there with this group this morning. They were Ontarians who wanted to travel about the floors of Queen's Park. The Speaker will know, as with most other members, I frequently host any number of groups of younger people and older people here.

This group, who were acting peaceably, who were not causing any breach of the peace and there was nothing to indicate that they posed a threat to the peace, were, as indicated by the member for Fort York, basically held at bay by a cordon of police officers.

I ask the Speaker also to consider what I understand, in my view, to be another problem very much related. Over the recent past I've had more and more visitors to this building being told that they're not welcome, that they're not permitted in fact in the area on the second floor where scrums take place after question period.

I understand the need for you, Speaker, and for the legislative security services and the OPP to maintain order here and to prevent any disruptions. However, I put this to you: that with my guests I consider attendance at the scrums a very important part of their visit to Queen's Park in terms of understanding all of the process that takes place here.

I'm asking you, in the consideration of the point of privilege of the member for Fort York, to also consider, please, that my privileges, as they rest with my constituents and other visitors here, are also being infringed and violated by virtue of what appears to be a new array of somewhat arbitrary and secret rules. Nobody's telling us what the rules are and there isn't an opportunity to debate them, to discuss them, to rebut any rationale that might be posed for them.

What we witnessed this morning was tragic because a very public place, perhaps what should be the most public place in this province, had been turned into a very private, exclusive place where members of the public who pay for this place were being denied an opportunity to walk about it peaceably.

I've witnessed that in terms of other visitors I've had in the area of the scrums. I consider that as repugnant, a violation of my privilege as a member. I would ask the Speaker to consider that in conjunction with the matter raised by the member for Fort York.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since during the member's introduction of the point of privilege he brought up the Premier's name and the minister who is responsible, just to state the obvious, the security of this building has nothing to do with this government. I think members know, and I assume the people of Ontario know, that the security of this building does not come under the control of the government. If indeed the police were called -- I don't know who was called -- it has nothing to do with the government.

Mr Speaker, as you know, it would be your responsibility and that of the Board of Internal Economy to look after those security measures.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me just deal with this quickly, without taking too much time.

I have a very real interest in promoting this facility, this building, as a place for people to come, and outside this facility to demonstrate and express points of view and interests different than those of the government or opposition. But let me be very clear to the members for Welland-Thorold and Fort York.

When you come into this building, the rules change to some degree, and the rules change in this way: Members have free and open access to travel the halls of this building. It would be a very dangerous and difficult precedent to set to suggest that demonstrations may in fact take place outside offices of members or outside the Premier's office or outside cabinet offices. It seems to me, from the report I received today, that although you may have seen this as a peaceable group, others would suggest that peaceable as they were, it was a demonstration none the less.

I frankly think, when you're bringing that many people together and they're requesting to speak to individual cabinet ministers, who in my opinion should have full and unfettered access to cabinet meetings -- because they are not public meetings; they are important executive meetings that take place in this facility -- it seems to me that maybe the privileges not necessarily of the members for Fort York and Welland-Thorold are being usurped but quite possibly the privileges of those in cabinet.

So I say to the members for Welland-Thorold and Fort York we must be very careful. We know this is the democratic place it's supposed to be. I understand what this facility means and what it means to the people of Ontario, but let me be very clear. I think the members of this place have every right and expectation to walk the halls without being presented with demonstrations in opposition or in favour of particular government initiatives. If I started down that slippery slope and allowed individuals or groups to come into this place and begin to demonstrate, I think it would become very unruly in a very short period of time.

To those two members, if demonstrations want to take place out front I will cooperate completely. When you come into this place the rules change and they're different, and I say to both the members, although you brought this forward, I don't agree with you. I don't think the people of Ontario in the truest democratic sense could agree with you and I think it's important that we allow all of us free and open access and movement within this building. If that isn't in place, there's an inherent danger there for all of us.

I don't accept your point of privilege. I don't accept it as a point of order. I say to you that those people were probably in the wrong as opposed to the cabinet ministers being in the wrong.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I have two rulings I'd like to make with respect to some previous points of privilege and order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I ask you to come to order.

Monday, January 27, 1997, the member for Essex South (Mr Crozier) raised a point of privilege respecting the fact that the standing committee on government agencies had received a certificate of intended appointments to a body which has not yet been established.

I've also received submissions from the government House leader.

Let me begin by saying that I don't find the action of the government in sending notice to the appropriate committee of its intent to make an appointment in any way an issue of privilege or contempt.

I went on, however, to consider whether or not the point raised by the member might more properly be a point of order. In reviewing the matter, I find nothing in the referral of a certificate of intent to appoint these two candidates which would in any way limit or compromise the ability or rights of a committee to conduct a review under the terms of the standing orders.

The fact that the appointments are contingent on the passage of legislation does not impact on the committee's review. I want to note here that this is not the first time the committee has reviewed an intended appointee prior to passage of legislation which establishes the agency, board or commission.

In 1991 the committee reviewed and concurred in the intended appointment of the Employment Equity Commissioner. Some members who were here during that period of time may recall that the legislation that provided for the Employment Equity Commissioner was not passed in this Legislature until 1994, but the appointment took place in 1991.

The committee has the ability to conduct its review of this intended appointee in the same manner it employs in all other cases. Therefore, I find that the member for Essex South has neither a point of privilege nor in fact a point of order.

Yesterday, the member for Oakwood (Mr Colle) rose on a question of privilege to express some concerns about a fax dealing with the government's agenda for municipal reform. According to the member, the fax indicated among other things that the "new united Toronto will be in place by January 1998."

Other members rose on separate but related questions of privilege. It seems that other members had also come into possession of faxes communicating information about the government's agenda for municipal reform. In this regard, submissions were made by the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley), the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton), the Minister of Environment and Energy (Mr Sterling) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin). I also heard from the government House leader on these matters.

I have had an opportunity to review the faxes in question and the submissions of the members who spoke to these matters.

Let me begin by responding to the submissions respecting the alleged breach of federal guidelines concerning the sending of faxes. This involves a legal -- perhaps even a constitutional -- issue, something that is obviously not within the Speaker's jurisdiction.

I will not leave the matter at just that. Rest assured that I continue to be perturbed about the information that is being communicated in these faxes. I am prepared to give people a reasonable amount of time to react to the events of last week and to rectify any unsatisfactory state of affairs, but I want to emphasize the word "reasonable."

I would ask whoever is responsible for sending out this kind of information -- or who is thinking about communicating this kind of information -- to read and absorb my ruling of January 22, 1997. It can be found on page 6441 of Hansard. Read it and then read it again, if necessary, because my patience is wearing thin -- very thin. In fact, it would be helpful if you just read it.

So that all members know where I stand, I want to make it plain to all that a prima facie case of contempt can be established even though it is not known who is communicating the objectionable information. What is important is not who is communicating objectionable information, but rather the fact that such information is being communicated.

I'd like to thank the various members who spoke to the matters they raised in this House yesterday.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will know that this morning our Liberal caucus met with some of the most respected people in Metro to get their view of the impact of your moves on dumping on municipalities a whole bunch of new services.

We heard, first, that they believe it's a big mistake in terms of just simply public policy, but we also heard consistently that in their opinion you're going to dramatically increase property taxes for all the residences in Metropolitan Toronto. Each of them has gone over the numbers. In North York it is their judgement that taxes will go up on residential properties by 11%. Mayor Frances Nunziata of York says that her community would be hit with almost a 10% increase in property tax for residences. Metro Chair Alan Tonks indicated that property taxes will go up significantly and put them on the verge of bankruptcy.

Minister, who should we believe? The mayors, who have done their homework and have released their figures showing significant property tax increases, or you, who refuse to release any studies on it?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I will refer the question from the member to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, I don't know how anybody can accurately predict how much their taxes would or would not go up until they know what their 1996 assessed values are going to be; until they determine the ratios and the range differential between commercial and residential and industrial and residential properties; until they decide what their mill rates are going to be for a particular year; until they decide which one of the six classes they're now allowed to distribute property taxes among.

Until all those decisions are made and until the final cost figures are in for the year just ended, 1996, I don't know how anybody could accurately predict what you're predicting.

Mr Phillips: I think Ontarians must be shaking their heads at this government. You are asking us to approve, tomorrow, the first bill in your mega-bills. You are going to force us, through closure, to approve in principle your bills and you refuse to tell the people of Metropolitan Toronto what it's going to cost.

I would just say we have people in Metropolitan Toronto who are taking whatever they can from you on your numbers. They've crunched them. They've shown that you are adding $1.2 billion across Ontario to property tax. I challenge you to discredit that. The officials across the province have done those numbers and you are adding that to it.

I'll ask a very simple question. You want us to approve a proposal that in the eyes of the major players in Metro Toronto adds 10% to property tax. Will you today table the studies that show it will not add 10% to property tax in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, we are not asking anybody to pass, in finality, any bill tomorrow. Let's get that out of the way. What we're asking for, and you know full well what the government House leader is asking for, is second reading on a bill that will be sent for public hearings for five consecutive weeks. That's what we're asking for. Maybe you over there don't want public consultation, but we in the government would like to hear what the public has to say. We'd like to hear what municipalities have to say.

Mr Phillips: Again, for the public -- I hope they are listening to this -- we are being forced to approve in principle these major bills that will change Ontario forever and you refuse to provide us with the evidence that the cabinet had when they made those decisions.

I will say to you very clearly, the mayors, the key people in Metropolitan Toronto have done their number work. Property taxes, they believe, will go up 10%. Will you table today the studies on which you made the decisions to offload, to dump $1 billion of extra costs on the property taxpayers? Will you table those studies so that as we debate these bills, we can have the same information you had when the cabinet made its decision?

Hon Mr Eves: We are not offloading or dumping $1 billion on anybody.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yes, you are.

Hon Mr Eves: We are not. In today's dollars --

Mr Phillips: Where are the numbers wrong? Show us the numbers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: In today's dollars we're asking municipalities province-wide to assume $6.355 billion worth of responsibility in return for, on an annual basis, probably more but no less than $6.4 billion, and that is factually correct.

I ask the honourable member, with respect to Metropolitan Toronto, has he included in his numbers the following figures: $40-plus million that Metro taxpayers saved last year because of reduced cost of social assistance? And those welfare caseloads will continue to drop and that saving will continue to rise. Have you included that number?

Have you included in your number the $100 million that Metro Toronto loses each and every year because of an antiquated, outdated property assessment system that has 1940 values as opposed to 1995 in Niagara region -- $100 million every year? Have you included in your figures, I say to the honourable member, $65 million every year that Metro's education costs would have gone up again and have gone up for the last decade? Have you included that number in your numbers, and have you included --

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, thank you. Is that it? New question, member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): This is new Tory math: Pay more and you get less.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): This morning the mayor of Toronto told us how numerous American mayors have told her they see in Toronto both their past and their future. They see their past because --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I need to know who your question is to.

Mr Cordiano: The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Cordiano: They see their past because their cities used to be safe, healthy and clean. They see their future because they are trying to duplicate the kind of city we enjoy in Toronto today.

Minister, there was a unanimous view among the presenters this morning that you are destroying Metro Toronto with your plan, that your decision to duplicate American-type cities is the wrong way to go. Why would you jeopardize the safe, healthy and clean communities we have? Why are you taking us down the American road and trying to duplicate cities like Detroit and Washington? Why are you doing that to Metro?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I agree with the member that we have a great city and a great community in Metropolitan Toronto. What we are going to do is create something that is even better by getting rid of the waste and duplication and overlap and high costs that our citizens are required to bear because of inadequate levels of government.

We have more politicians and more governments looking after the people in this community than probably any other community in Canada. I can assure you that when the city is amalgamated and we get rid of six of this and seven of that and eight of something else, the citizens in this community will be far better off.

Mr Cordiano: Every presenter this morning agreed that your plan to dump social services and help for the disabled and seniors on to municipalities is nothing short of reckless. That's what they described it as. We heard from groups like the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, who said that your dumping will leave seniors and the disabled with higher property taxes, that you're going to chase them out of their homes. They said, and I quote, "The Harris government is only looking at the short monetary gain on the province's books, not the long-term effects on social services and community programs." They said this would be disastrous for Metro Toronto and for seniors.

Minister, given the promises you made during the last election campaign, how can you assure seniors and the disabled that they will not become the targets of your cuts when your mega-dumping is complete? Protect seniors, protect the disabled: That's what you said you would do in the last election campaign. Why are you going back on your election promises?

Hon Mr Leach: To the member opposite, if he has an opportunity to read the proposals we're putting forward on property tax reform, he would recognize that we're giving the municipalities the ability to deal specifically with the disabled and specifically with seniors. An option that we're making available to municipalities is to defer any possible shift in taxes, because these are not increases in taxes. This is a system to bring equity into the system.

If there is a citizen, a senior or a disabled person, the municipality will have the right to spread that increase out over eight years, or at the choice of the senior or the disabled they can defer any shift in taxes until such time as the property changes hands.

Mr Cordiano: This is about the character of our communities, the kind of Ontario we want, the kind of Ontario I want my children to grow up and everyone wants their children to grow up in -- safe, clean communities. What you're doing will make that impossible in the future. You're going to destroy municipality after municipality right across this province. People told us that this morning. They're saying that. The chorus is growing; it's louder each and every day.

Minister, you and your plan are about to destroy municipalities. You are just eradicating the quality of life we have in this province with all the measures you're taking. Will you back away from this reckless strategy, from this ill-conceived plan to dump all these additional costs on to municipalities? It's on your head and I'm asking you to back away from it. It's ill-conceived, it's wrongheaded and it's reckless. Have the courage to stand up and defend cities across this province.

Hon Mr Leach: As a matter of fact, I am so convinced that the proposals we're bringing in will be of such great benefit to the citizens of this province that I wish we could implement them faster than we are.

The proposals we're bringing in by taking $5.4 billion off the property tax by assuming the cost of education and giving responsibility for the delivery of hard services to the municipalities will bring about a far more efficient, cost-efficient, better type of municipality to live in, and we know the citizens of Ontario understand this, we know they're backing our moves. They're in favour of what we're doing and if we had an opportunity to implement it even faster, we would.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister wants to move even faster, he says. Maybe your next bill could be to just transfer all the powers of the Legislature to you and then you don't have to bother with us in this House.

Minister, I want to talk to you about what you're doing with this closure motion today. You're bringing down closure on debate, but more importantly, you're bringing down closure on the public of Metropolitan Toronto. You're bringing down closure on democracy.

Your Deputy Premier says you want to hear what the public has to say, but it's clear to us that you're not interested in what the public has to say, because your closure motion allows only one day of debate after the hearings are finished on third reading of this bill. It's clear to us that you don't intend to listen at all to what people have to say, unless you change your mind even at this late point.

That's what I want to ask you. Will you come to your senses? Will you drop your draconian closure motion and will you agree to drop your legislation if that's what you hear, particularly from the people of Metropolitan Toronto, particularly as they vote against your megacity in the referendum? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think I've ever heard a more hypocritical statement than that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, that word is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw.

Hon Mr Leach: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. It should never be necessary to state the obvious.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands, order. You know I'm probably going to say something because I've stood back up, so if you could just give me a moment, I will deal with it.

That's not a withdrawal. If you could stop at, "I withdraw it," that would make it a withdrawal.

Hon Mr Leach: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

The opposition, both parties, have done nothing but try to derail this bill by delaying it, by keeping it away from public hearings.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: The opposition say they want debate, but what have they done over the last several weeks but cause delay, ring bells? At least four hours of debating time were lost. They talk about wanting to have a democratic process and what do they do? They keep this bill from going out to the public so the public can have input and hearings to debate the issue, to provide their comments. They have done absolutely nothing to assist the public in that process.

Mr Silipo: Being an optimist, I would like to say that I think there's still some hope. If this minister is finally beginning to understand that we are trying to derail his megacity bill, then he's finally beginning to get it. That's exactly what we've been trying to do because we think this bill is wrong. But we're not interested in hearing ourselves; we want to make sure you listen to the people of the province. You can talk about the process, but you know that we have wanted and we want to see the hearings.

What we are saying is that we want to make sure you listen to what people have to say and you do something about it, as opposed to just going through the charade of listening and then carrying on as if nothing was said to you.

It's not just us, Minister; it's your own friends, from the board of trade to the United Way, to Hazel McCallion, to Mel Lastman, to the Financial Post, to even David Crombie. They're all saying that what you're doing is wrongheaded, that the direction of your whole mega-scheme is wrong. What we're asking you, Minister, is this: How many more experts, how many more of your friends, are going to have to call you to task before you realize that what you're doing is wrong?

Hon Mr Leach: The member has mentioned two or three people who are opposed to amalgamation and they favour amalgamation. The board of trade is strongly in favour of amalgamation. David Crombie is in favour of amalgamation. They're making statements that are not correct when they're indicating that the public generally is not supportive of amalgamation.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Dumping the social services on to the property tax. They say, "Too high a price to pay."

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, you have to come to order, you really do. It's making it very difficult for me to hear the minister. I appreciate any assistance you can give me. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: If the opposition are really in favour of having public input into this bill, they'll assist us in getting it out to public hearings as early as we possibly can, as early as next week, so that the citizens of this area can have input into the process.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Fort York.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Minister, yesterday I asked you about Mr Crombie's comments on your housing proposal, and you insisted that Mr Crombie was wrong and in fact everyone else is wrong except you, and that your big download had been discussed by the Who Does What panel. Instead, we've heard something different: There have been no discussions, no consultations and no preparations. What we have got from you is a big housing bomb, and Mr Crombie told us as much. What you have done is you have sent them a $1.4-billion baby to care for with no feeding instructions and not even enough money to pay for the proper upkeep.

Minister, I ask you this: Where is Toronto going to find the $200 million it needs for the urgent repairs of the Metro housing authority? Where is Toronto going to find the 200 million bucks? You tell me and you tell the city of Toronto that.

Hon Mr Leach: I mentioned in this House yesterday that this issue had gone to the Who Does What panel and I went back to my office yesterday to confirm that, and I can confirm that there was discussion at the Who Does What panel on this social housing issue. As a matter of fact, those discussions were initiated over a year ago by the municipalities.

For example, I have in my hand here a letter from the chairman of Halton region, who states, "I would like to advise that Halton region has endorsed the concept of the management of public housing stock by the Halton Non-Profit Housing Corp, the municipal non-profit housing provider in our region." They want to take over social housing in Halton. By the way, there is a cc to David Crombie, chair of the Who Does What panel.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training regarding the other mega-bill that we have before the House, Bill 104. The minister has been requested to meet with parents across Ontario. He has been meeting, but he has been meeting with chambers of commerce in Kitchener-Waterloo and in London. He hasn't met with parents, for instance, in Toronto, parents in wards 1 and 2 in the west end and wards 11 and 12, the education council for Franklin Public School in Riverdale from ward 10 in the east. They've all tried to get meetings with the minister, with no luck.

Last night he did meet with some parents at Annette public school in Toronto's west end to videotape the meeting of a select group of parents. Unfortunately, I guess, for the videotaping, other parents showed up to express their views. I'd like to know, from the format of the meeting last night, is this the kind of thing that you consider to be consultation with parents and will your videotape when it is edited show the whole night's proceedings, including the cries of --

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

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for the question. I did attend last night a meeting, as I attend meetings across the province on a regular basis. This one was set up by the member for High Park-Swansea. It was an opportunity --

Mr Wildman: They ambushed you.

The Speaker: Well, I don't know. Let's find out. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd like to inform the House and perhaps when the House is quiet I'll be able to inform it.

We had an opportunity last night, as I've had on many other occasions, to have a meeting with people who represent a wide variety of interests. I can tell you that members of the PTA were there in that meeting. There were members of OSSTF in the meeting. There were principals, elementary school teachers, high school teachers.

A variety of people from a variety of different walks of life, all concerned about public education, were in that meeting, and we had a chance to talk about the reforms that we bring to Ontario's education system, including clearer responsibilities on governance and a reduction in the cost of governance in our schools so that we can direct funds into the classroom. We talked about the province finally taking on the cost of education and being able to assure every student in the province that there will be sufficient funds for a high-quality education.

I'm proud of those initiatives and I'm glad to get out across the province and explain it to the people.

Mr Wildman: Last week in the House the minister said, "If there are changes that can be made to the legislation we've brought to this floor that improve education for children of Ontario, I'd be more than willing to have a look at those amendments."

But last night, after hearing from the parents and hearing them say they disagree with the minister's approach to the education of their children, the minister said to the reporters that the parents were misinformed or uninformed. I'd like to know from the minister, is that what he thinks, that anyone who questions his government's propaganda or program as set out, who questions the wisdom of his view of the future for the education system, just doesn't know what they're talking about?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to inform the member for Algoma that of course that is not the position I would take or any member of my government would take. We do find ourselves faced with people from the public, though, and I'm sure the member for Algoma will appreciate this, who have been misinformed by various people who have not got a clear idea of what we've got before this House. Shocking as it may seem, there are some people who are defenders of a system with mediocre student achievement.

We believe on this side of the House that we have to increase student achievement. There are some people who are part of a $13-billion system who don't want to give up a particular special privilege or interest that they have. But most people are fair, reasonable and interested in improving the level of achievement by every student right across the province, and that's what this government is in favour of.

Mr Wildman: There seems to be an echo in this place from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I'd like to ask another question of the Minister of Education and Training.

I understand from the clerk of the committee that the committee has already received over 800 requests from parents, students, teachers and others concerned with education in Ontario to appear before the committee to make presentations on Bill 104. The minister has said that he wants to hear from the public. He can be guaranteed that many more will want to express their views before the committee. I know the parents' group People for Education has already written to the government House leader about this bill and asked for hearings.

Will the minister inform the government House leader that he believes there must be adequate opportunity for all people to be heard about Bill 104 and the changes in education, even if it takes six, seven weeks of hearings?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know that the member for Algoma will share my confidence in the abilities of the government House leader to make sure there is a chance for public input. But I want to remind the member for Algoma of a couple of facts: First, we are responding, finally, as a government to 24 major reports that have been done in my lifetime in this province on education governance and finance; finally a government is responding to those requests. Second, one of those reports that has been done was commissioned by your government, sir, when it was in power, the Sweeney commission.

We asked every member in this House --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Algoma, if you will let me respond, I can tell you. I asked every member of this chamber for input from their communities on Mr Sweeney's findings. I know that you contributed those, and we have observed those, and I think you'll see them reflected in the bill we have before this House. Every single member who responded to that request has had their community's input to the ministry and it has been reflected in our bill, so I'm confident that we have already had an enormous amount of public consultation. We are willing to have further -- I am proud of the bill that we put before this chamber.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Over the course of the last several weeks there have been a number of high-profile incidents involving truck wheels flying where some have resulted in death, some in injury and some near misses. Would the minister share with the House today what plans he has to improve road safety in Ontario and over what period of time he intends to act?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I certainly share the concern the honourable member has expressed of what is happening on our highways, especially with the reported numbers of lost wheels that have occurred so far this year. I believe that the problem has been highlighted to a point where these things most likely are being reported on a more common basis.

Needless to say, I want to assure the honourable member that this government will continue its efforts on truck safety. It has been an ongoing thing. I believe we started in October 1995, and we have implemented a lot of changes. But we are going to continue to build on that plan and it's going to be reflected in the future bill that we're going to be proposing in the spring, other deterrents that we're going to bring forward to make sure our highways are safe and truckers are going to pay attention to safety.

Mr Duncan: We have heard a litany, every time there's been an accident, from the government about what it has done to improve road safety, yet the accidents continue. The government has not responded to the Worona inquest in its entirety. The government has not hired as many officers as it originally promised to do in terms of enforcing road safety. As recently as this weekend, published reports are now saying that ministry documents are acknowledging that the number of wheel accidents in this province has more than doubled since you began your program.

Your program hasn't worked. Will you agree today to a legislative inquiry to address this matter in its entirety, in public, to make sure that the people of this province have the assurance that their roads will continue to be safe and that they can drive without fear of being hit by a truck tire?

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to reiterate the member's concerns. However, I want to point out that this government has done more for safety in the short period we have been a government than I believe the previous two governments did in 10 years. I want to say to the honourable member that MTO staff have stopped over 40,000 vehicles up to the fiscal year to date, and that is twice as many as happened in any previous fiscal year to date under previous governments. In the first seven months we took out of service 1,422 plates, which is nearly double what other administrations had done.

Mandatory wheel training has been initiated. Higher fines: We've raised the level of minimum fines and also have a maximum $20,000 fine. We've lifted the axle weight moratorium that was contributing to highway accidents and damaging of infrastructure. We have done a lot of positive things. I know we have a long way to go. I'm willing to work with the member. If he has suggestions, I'd be glad to take them.

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. I'd like to go back to the issue of your cancellation of the bail release program as of March 31 of this year. Are you aware that on March 31 there will still be a considerable number of people who have been ordered by the courts to be supervised under the bail program? In Waterloo, for example, approximately 200 people will still be under such court orders.

In order to change those court orders those bail program clients will have to return to court, and that means a large number of court appearances involving justices of the peace, crowns, defence or duty counsel, clerks and so on, just to change those conditions of bail. Of course, your other option is simply to ignore the bail conditions ordered by the courts, conditions that are there to protect the public safety.

What do you intend to do on March 31 with all those clients who still remain? Are you going to clog up the courts more? Are you going to ignore the bail conditions? What is your plan?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): One of the options under consideration would be that the individuals who would remain under this program at the end of the date we've indicated it will expire, March 31, will be instructed to report to the nearest probation and parole office. In that way they will be required to comply with the reporting condition until the next scheduled bail hearing.

Mrs Boyd: By whom are they going to be ordered to do that? The issue is that they were put under the bail supervision program, not under probation and parole. The minister is well aware that the probation and parole officers in this province are already heavily burdened. They are unable to deal with the additional caseload that would be received by them and still maintain the public safety.

This is just another example of your government making a decision without looking at the impact. We found out that it wasn't until after you'd ordered the cancellation of this program that ministry officials actually went into the various programs and began to look at client files to see what the impact of this decision would be. It is quite clear that you have no idea what you are doing, that you are under such pressure to save money to pay for your tax cuts that you are simply grasping at straws and in the meantime endangering the public safety and leaving us in a position where we may be clogging the courts.

Why don't you simply do the honourable thing and reverse this decision until you know what the impacts are?

Hon Mr Runciman: There were two studies commissioned during the time the NDP was in office. The one thorough investigation and review indicated there was no meaningful or measurable impact in terms of the remand population in our correctional facilities. The other study with respect to the justice system, the Cole-Gittens review, although supportive of the program generally, indicated it should not be the responsibility of the ministry of corrections.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. The teachers' strike in Lennox and Addington has been dragging on since December 9, 1996. In my constituency office we are receiving more than 40 calls each day from concerned parents who are worried their children will lose their school year. These parents are telling me their children's education is being disrupted because of a labour dispute that has nothing to do with them. Minister, what are you going to do to help students and parents in Lennox and Addington?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I've been on record many times as saying I believe we need a change in the bargaining climate in the province of Ontario, that our professional teachers need to have a way of bargaining that doesn't hold to hostage the students and children of the province.

I'm very aware of what's going on in Lennox and Addington. We are in the 28th day; I understand today the 28th instructional day will be lost to those students. There have been 11 other job actions this year in other areas which have disrupted the normal relationship between teachers and students and parents. In fact, we've lost 17 million student days over the course of the last 20 years to job actions.

We are monitoring this. I wrote to both parties last week, asking them to please come to an agreement, to use all of their good offices to do that. I understand they are meeting today, trying to resolve their issues. Of course, we all wish them well at that. I am also considering all the actions we might take as a government that are provided to us under Bill 100. We are monitoring this very carefully.

Mr Fox: I received a call from a young high school student who is terrified she won't be able to graduate from Napanee District high school to attend Queen's University and eventually go to medical school. She called me in tears and asked me to do something to help her.

I am told that in the past all parties in this House have recognized the importance of helping students like this one and they have passed legislation in as quickly as 45 minutes. Minister, will you ask the opposition parties to help this young lady today so that she will be able to attend university next fall and pursue her dream of becoming a doctor?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me begin my response by saying right at the start that in the past this chamber has had a proud record, no matter which was the party in power at the time, that the interests of students have been non-partisan issues, and I expect that would continue in the future. There's a proud record of that.

I believe the reason for that is because all of us have felt in our constituencies the frustration of parents and students and teachers when the bargaining process grinds to a halt. We are looking into the confines of Bill 100 to see what actions might be appropriate. If an action at some point is appropriate to help break this logjam in the negotiations we will do so. But I want to emphasize one more time that this has not been a partisan issue in the past and I would not expect it to be in the future.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health. In many Ontario communities -- in Pembroke, Petrolia, Sudbury, Fort Erie, Sarnia, Chatham -- thousands of people are going to arenas and town squares traumatized by what you, your department and your government are doing or are threatening to do by way of closing their community hospitals.

Your government is using as its principal mechanism for closing hospitals in Port Colborne and Pembroke a new hospital bed standard. On behalf of those thousands of people in communities like Fort Erie and St Catharines and Pembroke, can you tell this House today, and through this House all of those people and their elected representatives, which hospitals in Ontario communities of between 5,000 and 75,000 people today operate consistent with your government's new hospital bed standard?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): What I will say to the member opposite, and what I will tell the people of Ontario, is that this government is dealing with the health care issue in total, living within its promises of $17.4 billion in terms of health care -- a large chunk of that for hospitals, I might add -- in the context of a $2-billion reduction in health care from the federal Liberal government.

The ministry is attempting to provide better services through our hospitals in all our communities, better services by carrying on with the program begun by the previous government, where the previous government gave the district health councils $26 million and asked them to look at the most efficient way of delivering hospital services in our communities. District health councils, including in Renfrew and Pembroke, are coming forward with recommendations. The restructuring commission is dealing with those recommendations, is having consultations with the general public, and there will be actions coming forward through the restructuring commission to make --

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

Mr Conway: It is your hands that are around the neck of the Pembroke Civic Hospital. It is your hands that are threatening to squeeze the lifeblood out of the Sudbury General Hospital. It is your hands that are around the neck of the Hotel Dieu in St Catharines. Let there be no confusion: It is your hands; it is your policy. This is your doing.

On behalf of the thousands of people that are gathering in Petrolia, St Catharines, Pembroke, Sudbury, Sarnia, Chatham and several other communities, I ask you specifically, are there any hospitals in Ontario today that are operating in communities of between 5,000 and 75,000 population that meet your new hospital bed standard? More likely, do we have to go to some private health maintenance operation in Georgia, New Jersey or Ohio to find somebody in compliance with this new standard that is the wrecking ball that is going to slam shut and crush and end the Pembroke Civic Hospital, the Port Colborne General, the Hotel Dieu in St Catharines and several others in this province?

Hon David Johnson: I find it interesting to have the question from the member for Renfrew North, who was part of a government that started the closure of beds in Ontario. Over the last 10 years we have seen some 8,400 beds closed in the province. This government is attempting to come to grips with the problem of 8,400 beds which have been closed, providing better services in our hospitals right across Ontario through the restructuring commission.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Talk to the people from Pembroke.

Hon David Johnson: Over the catcalls, Mr Speaker --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines, I appreciate your comment, but the member for Oriole, I ask you to come to order. I couldn't quite hear what you said. It may have been out of order; I'm not sure. I'm sure it's not. I ask you to come to order, please.

Hon David Johnson: In terms of standards within individual communities, the restructuring commission, a panel of appointed experts who have great expertise in terms of community standards, is establishing those standards on a community-by-community basis. They're coming forward with the recommendations to make health care and hospital care better in the province.

TUITION FEES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. As the minister knows, students across Ontario in the post-secondary system are awaiting his government's announcement with regard to tuition fees for next year. The minister will know that in a presentation to the Smith panel there were a number of proposals made. He has frozen funding for the post-secondary institutions, colleges and universities, next year. Is he prepared to accede to the requests of the Canadian Federation of Students that he do the same for tuition fees?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Algoma for the question. We are considering the recommendations of the Smith commission and we have responded, in the freeze of our payments to universities and colleges for next year, well in advance of the time when that is normally announced.

We also hope to be able to announce what flexibility there may or may not be for institutions surrounding tuition fees for the next year as early as we possibly can, but we believe that the report deserves to be read, deserves to be considered, and we are now talking with various people in the post-secondary sector about what the proper response should be.

I note that the Smith commission talked about making investments in our post-secondary education system, something this government asked the Smith commission to look into, wanted to get that information for, including the share of the private sector, the share of the government and of course the share of students. We'll be investigating that over the coming months and we hope to be able to make an announcement.

Mr Wildman: The coming months? Surely the announcement of next year's tuition fees will be sooner than that.

In dealing with the Smith panel, I hope the minister has looked at York University's submission. In a survey of York students, the university found that the average level of student indebtedness has doubled since 1994-95. The university concludes, "It is becoming increasingly clear that anticipated level of debt is affecting the decisions students make about post-secondary education."

In other words, students are not going to post-secondary education because of the fear of heavy debt. Is the minister considering changes to the student aid system, and when will we expect next year's students to know what possible changes there will be in the level of tuition they will have to pay?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We are very aware of the fact that we need to improve the Ontario student assistance program. We have been studying for some time and working with our federal counterparts on an appropriate income-contingent loans package that will be available to students. As recently as the end of the last week, I wrote the minister responsible in Ottawa and asked him to move forward with all good speed, because I believe this will help our students meet their obligations for post-secondary education.

We have maintained our transfer payments to colleges and universities this year at over $2 billion. We have established the post-secondary student opportunity trust fund for $100 million, which our institutions have received very enthusiastically. We have asked them and they have put aside 10% of the increase in tuition from last year to help the students most in need -- there is some $16.2 million available now in that fund -- and we increased OSAP funding last year by about $100 million.

We recognize the need to give students the assistance to be able to take

part in post-secondary education and we are working very hard to improve and make sure that those systems meet their needs now and in the future.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Over the past several years Ontario students have written numerous national and international tests. The results of these have not been very encouraging. In the third international math and science test, released last fall, Ontario's students were unable to meet the Canadian average and just barely able to meet the international achievement average. It's my understanding that the results of yet another national test were released today. Do today's tests show any improvement?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): In answer to the member's question, recently the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, released the results of the tests that were done on people who are 13 and 16 years old in all the provinces and territories of Canada. I regret to report that in these science tests our students in Ontario, in both age groups, performed below the national average. That is obviously not acceptable to this minister and it's not acceptable to any member of the government.

Mrs Ross: National and international tests indicate that Ontario is producing average students. I don't think anyone in this Legislature thinks these results are indicative of what Ontario students are able to achieve. What is this government doing to ensure that Ontario's students are the best in the world?

Hon Mr Snobelen: In answer to the member's question, I am very proud of our record on moving forward in student achievement. As a matter of fact in our pledge to parents we have committed, as a government, to implementing a rigorous and demanding curriculum which will emphasize the basics: reading, writing, spelling, grammar, math, science, geography, Canadian history and technology. Our standards will be clear, measurable and comprehensive in all grades; finally, I might add, clear, measurable and comprehensive. We will measure those standards with province-wide tests and we have begun that this year.

These changes will help our students lift their achievement to be ahead of the other provinces in Canada, not middle of the road.

We have also made the changes in a system that has produced mediocrity at great cost to a system that will take us to the future, that will provide us with the highest levels of student achievement in Canada. That is the objective of this government and that is the reason for our changes in education.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Health. In August 1995 the Minister of Health promised $25 million to bring dialysis to under- and non-serviced communities. Cornwall, unfortunately, is one of those communities. No dialysis is available, so residents travel to Kingston and Ottawa for treatment.

Reacting to the problem, local community health officials called on the Minister of Health. It took eight months, but the minister finally announced that dialysis would soon be available in care of a provider his ministry had pre-selected. A week later he pulled the plug on the decision and admitted an error in choosing the provider. He promised that a second provider would be selected very soon. That was eight months ago.

Minister, consider what it would be like to drive one and a half to two hours each way, three times a week, to receive basic medical attention. Are you going to follow through on the promise you made last April, and if so, when?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I appreciate the question. Obviously that wasn't my particular promise but the promise of the former minister. I will endeavour to look into this matter and I'll get back to the member.

I know that the Ministry of Health has over the course of the last year made announcements in terms of reinvestment in dialysis. The ministry has made a great number of announcements about reinvesting in the health care system in Ontario, because the services currently, while they're good services, need to be improved, made better.

I will take your point and look particularly in terms of the Cornwall area and the dialysis program.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Minister, there are a number of areas in terms of health care and you are simply not following up on promises you have made and your fellow colleagues have made in the area of health.

In particular in Windsor, the Windsor hospitals are no longer prepared to be the bad boy and take the hits for what the Conservative government is doing to health care in my community. Yesterday they released figures which show clearly that because of the Conservative government funding of our hospitals in Windsor and Essex county, we are below the Ontario average by $42 million a year. Specifically that is $122 per person, per year less in Windsor-Essex than anywhere else in Ontario.

Will you stand today and ensure that through your policies you will in effect give us equity in funding in Windsor-Essex county?

Hon David Johnson: I will say to the member that hospitals are not funded on a per capita basis. The per capita funding might not include certain services in some areas which it includes in other areas, services such as mental health, long-term care and other services.

Having said that, I am concerned about equity for hospitals across Ontario. I am concerned with regard to the operating grants of the hospitals across Ontario. I am working on the operating grants for the 1997-98 fiscal year. The ministry is working very hard. I would expect an announcement in the very near future which will reflect the need for programs in various areas, which will reflect growth in population in various areas and which will reflect other factors, to bring an even greater equity in hospital funding in Ontario.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have here a document entitled A Preliminary

Summary of Provincial Announcement and the Implications on the City of Timmins, with regard to your latest announcements around your downloading a number of services on to municipalities.

Minister, I want to be clear here. Once the municipality gets those services that you're handing over to them, when you take into account the amount of taxes they're going to get from school assessment and what you're transferring on to them, the shortfall is $12 million.

Now the question I have to you is very simply this: What can you say to the citizens of Timmins when it comes to what might happen to their property taxes when the city is faced with additional expenditures of $12 million, for which they don't have the revenue? Can you guarantee the people in Timmins that they're not going to get a property tax increase as a result of your recent announcements?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What I can assure the citizens of Timmins and the citizens of every municipality in Ontario is that when our proposals are implemented, after the phase-in period, when we know some municipalities may need some assistance, they'll all be better off and the vast majority of them will be able to introduce a property tax decrease. I hope that's the case in Timmins.

However, we also recognize that there are some municipalities that are going to require assistance and we have set up a $1-billion fund for municipalities that need help in carrying out the programs we've asked them to be responsible for. They'll be able to draw on that fund as required. I don't know whether the municipality of Timmins falls into that category, but if it does, it would be able to apply for that fund.

Mr Bisson: The problem is this: The city of Timmins is learning, and the full implication of your cuts has yet to be calculated because we know there are a number of other announcements that are going to be made by your government, but at this point we're over $12 million to the negative in additional expenditures that the city has to take. What's really appalling is that the officials of the city of Timmins at no time are getting any indication from the government in any kind of real way of exactly what it is you want them to do.

I want to draw your attention to something: There was in the last election a document that had the picture of the Premier on it. I want to remind you it was called the Common Sense Revolution. You probably know it well. In this Common Sense Revolution, you said: "We will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions we take will not result in an increase in local property taxes."

The city of Timmins is saying, "If we have to increase property taxes to assume the responsibility, it's 40%." The promise you made is (

a) that property taxes would not go up and (

b) that you would work with the municipalities. Minister, they haven't seen you. They haven't seen any of your officials. There's no real information coming on. What are you going to do to assist the communities like Timmins to be able to deal with what you're doing?

Hon Mr Leach: I am glad the member opposite brought out the Common Sense Revolution, because it does state in there that we will work closely with municipalities and we are working closely with municipalities, both in southern Ontario and in northern Ontario. My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs has been in northern Ontario on an almost weekly basis to provide information to the citizens of northern Ontario.

This government has worked and developed policies to ensure that there will be no tax increases, and that applies to any tax, whether it's income tax, property tax or business tax.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You were even scared to come out of your office to go to a cabinet meeting.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Where were you today, Al. The lights were on and nobody was home.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Nobody was home.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Welland-Thorold, Cochrane North and Fort York, come to order. Anything else? Motions? No motions.

Mr Kormos: When we came to the ministry the lights were on, nobody was home; the lights are on, the doors are barred.

The Speaker: Come to order means that you stop heckling.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"Closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"Physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"Treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"As Mr Ross Virgo stated, the Ontario Correctional Institute is a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques;

"Research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"A therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Save victims and money by keeping open what works open, and request a response from the Minister, Solicitor General Bob Runciman."

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): South.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I know the member for Cochrane North does a wonderful job, but I represent the riding of Cochrane South and do just as well.

I have a petition here, speaking of that, from the citizens of the riding of Cochrane South, and it reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has plans to make changes to the Workers' Compensation Act which will have a negative impact on workers; and

"Whereas the change includes reducing the payout to 85% of earnings, eliminating various types of injuries and having employees apply to their employer for benefits; and

"Whereas the WCB has a surplus of $510 million in 1995; and

"Whereas in 1994 there was an uncollected employer debt of $173 million;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the government of Ontario stop its plans to privatize WCB and that the extensive provincial-wide hearings be held before any changes are made to the Workers' Compensation Board, and further

be it resolved that recommendations to privatize will result in an increase of 13% in administrative costs."

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the town of Thessalon. It reads:

"We, the undersigned residents of the town of Thessalon in the district of Algoma would like to extend our appreciation to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Al Palladini, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, for their commitment to northern Ontario, and in particular the district of Algoma, for road improvements to Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie to Bruce Mines.

"As part of this commitment to northern Ontario, we request that the road construction be continued in our direction, so that years of neglect to our highway system can be rectified."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition, and it reads this way:

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

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

I've signed this petition.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Like the member for Grey-Owen Sound, I too have received a petition from the Coalition of Citizens for a Better Algoma, including such residents of the town of Thessalon as Howard Delaney, Natalie Carson and Jack Hill. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of the town of Thessalon in the district of Algoma, would like to extend our appreciation to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Al Palladini, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, for their commitment to northern Ontario, and in particular the district of Algoma, for road improvements to Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie to Bruce Mines.

"As part of this commitment to northern Ontario, we request that highway road construction be continued in an east direction so that years of neglect to our highway system can be rectified."

It's signed by several citizens and I've affixed my signature to this worthwhile petition.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175 and 633, submitted by Herb McDonald on behalf of their tens of thousands of members in the province of Ontario. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Premier Harris.

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system including reducing benefits; excluding claims for repetitive strain injuries, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational diseases; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; integrating sick benefits into WCB; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT; including eliminating worker representation on the board and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeal structure with worker representation, access to the office of the worker adviser, that the WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

As I am in support of this petition, I add my name to theirs.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I just want you to know that I keep receiving these petitions against the $2 user fee for seniors. I'll read the petition, which is as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge senior citizens and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user copayment fee or from other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 user fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health, as an opposition MPP, has said and written in fact that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal this user fee plan because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, is not sensitive and not accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors, and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I'm signing my John Henry to this petition because I agree with it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the University of Windsor, the School of Music, of course from Windsor, Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I add my name to theirs.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature. I'm in full agreement.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3440, in Kirkland Lake, forwarded to me by Linda Petrie, the vice-president, who is also a certified health and safety representative.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government began a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while at work and allow us to return home to our families in the same condition in which we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear that they intend to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the existing legislation."

I add my name to theirs.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas proposed changes to secondary school education in Ontario appear to be driven by financial concerns and not by educational objectives;

"Whereas reform of curriculum appears to be an afterthought;

"Whereas sufficient time and resources are essential to ensure that the reforms are done properly; and

"Whereas the areas defined for consultation by the ministry and the questions posed are too restrictive and do not include many of the fundamental aspects of the proposals;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to delay the reform of secondary school education until such time as the practical aspects of the reforms can be addressed."

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition in opposition to the privatization of TVOntario.

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest any plans to privatize TVOntario. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming and Wahsa distance education services because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

That's signed by constituents of mine from North Caribou Lake, Weagamow Lake and throughout the north. I attach my name to that petition as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Mr Patten moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act / Projet de loi 111, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la santé mentale.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to thank the assembly for accepting first reading of a private member's bill. The bill is designed to amend the Mental Health Act to ensure that a person who suffers from a mental disorder may be admitted to a psychiatric facility as an involuntary patient if the disorder is likely to result in serious physical impairment or in a substantial physical or mental deterioration of that person.

As members will know, currently the act provides that a person can only be admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric facility if the mental disorder will likely result in serious bodily harm to the person or another person or in serious and imminent physical impairment to that person. This bill is designed to amend that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I apologize to the House. I should have asked before Mr Patten spoke to the bill, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'OBSERVATION DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Mr Leadston, on behalf of Mr Kells, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to observe two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day / Projet de loi 112, Loi visant l'observation de deux minutes de silence le jour du Souvenir.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): The bill declares that the people of Ontario will observe two minutes of silence at 11 am on Remembrance Day in honour of those who died in war and on peacekeeping missions. Its purposes are to be achieved through voluntary observance and through our collective desire to remember. The bill sets out a number of suggestions for promoting the observance of this silence.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 or special order of the House and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 103,

An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto, when Bill 103 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on general government;

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill on the following days:

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during the weeks of February 3, 1997, February 10, 1997, February 17, 1997, February 24, 1997, and on Monday, March 3, 1997, and Wednesday, March 5, 1997, and that the committee be authorized to meet from 9 am to 12 pm, 3:30 pm to 6 pm, and 7 pm to 9 pm on such days to receive public submissions on the bill;

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill for clause-by-clause consideration commencing Thursday, March 6, 1997, from 9 am to 12 pm and from 3:30 pm until completion of clause-by-clause;

All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 7 pm on March 5, 1997. At 5 pm on Thursday, March 6, 1997, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a).

The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

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

g) shall be permitted.

I now have an amendment to incorporate a couple of other facets into that motion.

I move at this time that the motion be amended by deleting the words "or special order of the House and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House," in the first and second lines of the first paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof "and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House," and;

That the motion be further amended by striking out the seventh and eighth paragraphs and inserting the following in lieu thereof:

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and the bill shall be referred to the committee of the whole House;

That one hour shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House.

Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once, and all deferred divisions taken in succession. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 2 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House, and that notwithstanding standing order 9(a), the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time until completion of the committee of the whole stage of Bill 103;

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

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

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

g) shall be permitted.

I rise today in support of this --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We have agreed on the time.

Hon David Johnson: Yes. I should say at the outset -- thank you to the whip from the third party -- that the agreement is that the government will use the time until 4 o'clock and the remaining time will be split equally between the two opposition parties until the vote is taken later this afternoon. So my time is limited, and I will say that --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: Agreed?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: My time is limited and I will say that the government has attempted to bring this matter forward for debate. This is an issue of tremendous significance not only to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, but this is an issue of tremendous significance to the people of Ontario and indeed, I would submit, to the people of Canada.

The Metropolitan Toronto area has been evolving over many years. I guess it was in 1967 that some 13 municipalities were amalgamated into the six local governments we have today, and of course the regional government persisted at that time. The bill that we have to debate, Bill 103, would be a further step along that evolution in terms of amalgamating all of those governments, those seven remaining governments, into one government.

This government feels that there should be significant debate, that not only the people but this House should be debating this issue, because there are key questions. There are questions of communities. I might say in my few minutes that I have a strong sense of community. I was not born in East York but I was privileged to serve on the East York council for over 20 years, both as alderman and as mayor. East York is a strong community.

Indeed, within East York there are two strong communities, because over my many years in East York I have become accustomed to people talking about either the "town" or the "township," and they are referring to the former town of Leaside or to the former township of East York. Both entities, which were created early in the century -- Leaside in 1913, the township of East York in 1924 -- have that long sense of history. That history, I might say, in Leaside --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Talk to the present mayor.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Hon David Johnson: -- has persisted even after 1967, when Leaside was amalgamated into East York, and yet still today people talk about the town of Leaside, still today people take pride in the town of Leaside through their local organizations, local community get-togethers. Well they should, and well should people take pride in the now borough of East York and the former township of East York.

That is a pride that persists in our communities: in the Beaches community, for example, which never has been a municipality, but still there's a pride; in Willowdale, for example; in Forest Hill, Swansea and so many communities that we have across Metropolitan Toronto. The government is interested in hearing the comments of people interested in ensuring that whatever we come forward with at the end of the day, that community pride and that sensitivity to neighbourhood needs persist. We are interested that people within their communities feel a responsiveness to a new kind of government, whatever new kind of government does come forward. They have to feel involved.

They're concerned about what happens on their streets and in their neighbourhoods: speeding on their streets, the repair of their sidewalks, the local planning, the local recreation, so many programs that they're concerned about. I'm quite confident that once this gets out to public debate, we will hear those kinds of concerns and we will hear good ideas as to how those sensitivities can be not only retained but increased through a new model.

At the same time, we know from many organizations, the board of trade, for example, within Metropolitan Toronto, that business is suffering, jobs. Particularly under the previous government, some 200,000 jobs were lost in Metropolitan Toronto. If you ask the board of trade why, "What is the number one problem that we've had for those jobs?" they will tell you that the municipal tax rate is overburdening in Metropolitan Toronto, that we need to do something about the property tax in Metropolitan Toronto, and they would like to get education off the property tax, which we are proposing for the residential side.

They would like to have a lowering of the property tax in Metropolitan Toronto to make it competitive.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You keep it off for business.

Hon David Johnson: Well, Mr Speaker, the government believes that through this new structure, this new one-city structure, there will be efficiencies, there will be a reduction in costs, and accordingly there will be a lower tax rate on to the people and businesses of Metropolitan Toronto.

The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto itself has said through a study, through a consultant, that some $40 million can be s