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

February 26, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L169 - Wed 26 Feb 1997 / Mer 26 Fév 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

COURT RULING

AL SMITH

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

SCHOOL BOARDS

ONTARIO-QUEBEC MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

EDUCATION FINANCING

EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION

MATCH DE HOCKEY ENTRE DÉPUTÉS DES ASSEMBLÉES DU QUÉBEC ET DE L'ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REVIEW

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NUCLEAR SAFETY

AQUARIUM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

ASSISTED HOUSING

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

FIRE SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

REGENT PARK COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

HOSPITAL FINANCING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

HOSPITAL FINANCING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FIRE SAFETY

HIGHWAY 17

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Once again this government is ignoring the most vulnerable in our society by refusing to take action.

Ms Price, a constituent of mine, has been trying to collect support payments from her ex-husband since July 1995. After numerous court appearances and promises of payment, Ms Price has not received any money from her ex.

On February 18, 1997, she found herself before a judge yet again, who ordered her ex-husband to pay $3,000 within seven days or he was going to jail, the judge said. Monday, February 24, was the seventh day and Ms Price had received no money. When she called the family support plan, they were only able to say that no money had been received.

Mr Price has been ordered to pay support numerous times and he has not done so. He has been told that if he did not comply with the court order, he would be sent to jail. He has not served a single day.

I'm asking the Premier to intervene and ensure that his Attorney General and his Solicitor General take action in this situation. Deadbeat dads feel they don't have to pay support order payments because there are no penalties if they don't comply.

Ms Price and her children are desperate. They have no place to turn. They are asking only for what is rightfully theirs. I'm asking this government and this Premier to intervene on behalf of her and all parents who are not receiving support payments.

COURT RULING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): In light of yesterday's ruling against the trustees in Bill 103, the Minister of Municipal Affairs seems intent on still trying to ignore the importance of that ruling.

He is quoted as saying today, "We have stated on numerous occasions...the trustees do not have any jurisdiction until such time as the legislation is passed." Of course he also said, as the judge in the case himself quoted in his judgement, as the trustees' "right to examine municipal decisions will be retroactive to the date this legislation was introduced" it is "in everyone's interests to cooperate with them."

Clearly the Minister of Municipal Affairs was trying to have it both ways and the judge in the case found exactly to that effect, because the justice went on to find and to say: "As a practical matter the municipal councils must conform now to the legislative scheme of

an act not yet in force. If these orders in council were allowed to stand, the government would be allowed to do indirectly what it cannot do directly."

That is wrong. The justice found it to be wrong. The Minister of Municipal Affairs would do well to understand that it was wrong and he should adhere to that.

AL SMITH

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I solemnly rise in the House today to recognize the services of a citizen of this province. Orillia alderman Al Smith passed away last Friday evening. Cam Jackson, minister responsible for seniors' issues, and I paid our respects on behalf of the people of Ontario at yesterday's funeral services.

Al Smith is best known to the members of this House as president of the United Senior Citizens of Ontario. He was a persistent advocate for seniors in this province, lobbying on their behalf both the federal and provincial governments.

Mr Smith was an initial supporter of the Canada-US Games and was made an honorary citizen of Auburn, New York. Al Smith was an avid outdoor sportsman, member of many service clubs and also the conservation club in Orillia.

He was first elected to Orillia council in 1975 and served for 22 unbroken years, longest in the history of the city of Orillia. Mr Smith was also actively involved in several community service clubs. A local newspaper described Al Smith as a "feisty alderman who never gave in to despair."

On behalf of the members, I send sympathy to Al's wife, Marie, and family. Ontario has lost a courageous citizen.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): The recently announced mini-casino initiative by the Harris government will begin the first wave of video slot machines -- over 6,000, in fact.

These machines are well-known to be highly addictive and are considered the crack cocaine of gambling. They're also the prime target of a grass-roots rebellion against gaming that has started in the west. The town of Rocky Mountain House overwhelmingly decided they don't want VLTs in their community. Similar referenda and plebiscites are planned for dozens of other communities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In every case, communities are saying the same thing: Governments have gone too far by introducing these insidious little machines.

If this slot machine scheme was really about obtaining better funding for charities, why is the government prepared to take some $730 million from slot machines alone in this mini-casino scheme, while it's content to give the charities only $180 million? That's four times less than the government's share.

The trend in this country is towards eliminating slot machines, not increasing them. Not only have the Premier and his government thrown out their conscience on this issue, but they've broken their promise on referenda for communities. It's clear that the Mike Harris government has become the biggest addict to gaming in this country.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Last week I met with CUPE members, teachers and parents who are not only deeply concerned about Bill 104 but feel this government is deliberately hiding the real agenda behind this legislation.

What we know is that the unelected and unaccountable Education Improvement Commission set up by this legislation will make recommendations on how to promote and facilitate the outsourcing of non-instructional services of school boards.

What this really means is that a large number of school workers, including workers responsible for caretaking, daycare, payroll, maintenance and lunchtime activity programs, will see their jobs privatized. We all know companies that will take over these jobs will not pay the fair wages, benefits and job security that these workers have won through decades of collective bargaining.

If workers from sectors other than school boards think this will not happen to them, think twice. The blueprint will be used for municipalities and health care workers right across this province.

Citizens and taxpayers of this province have every reason to be worried by a plan that will eliminate good jobs and that will lead to reduced access to services for our children. They have every reason to be worried, because this government has a hidden agenda. Since January we have seen the Premier on TV ads promoting his education reform and asking the population to call a toll-free number to find out more about their plan. Guess what? I did call and was told that the package would not be ready before the beginning of April. What a coincidence. This education reform package will be available only after Bill 104 hearings are over and done with.

ONTARIO-QUEBEC MEMBERS' HOCKEY GAME

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Hockey unites Canadians. Hockey cuts across all differences. The competition, the rituals of the game, diffuse differences in both the players and the fans. That's what happened last weekend when members of provincial Parliament from Quebec and Ontario vied for hockey supremacy.

There's not a game more thrilling than the Montreal Canadiens playing the Toronto Maple Leafs. But almost as thrilling was the two-game series between the Ontario Legiskaters and the members of the National Assembly of Quebec. Toronto beat Montreal, and Ontario beat Quebec. The Quebec members were most gracious hosts, losing 13-10 at the Molson Centre and losing again 8-5 at Pierrefonds.

The stellar coaching by Quebec Premier Lucien Bouchard couldn't keep pace with Ontario's coaching staff of Gary Fox, Gary Leadston and Bob McAllister. Referee Daniel Johnson was generally impartial, although a two-minute penalty for a Conservative playing left wing is a dubious call.

Premier Mike Harris got a goal and an assist, Minister Hodgson led the series in scoring and Minister Johnson led the series in body-checks and penalties. Speaker Stockwell took one for the team when he separated his shoulder and continued to play. Goaltender Gary Carr was spectacular, stopping about 500 shots.

Both teams thanked organizers MPP Morley Kells and MNA Russ Williams.

On behalf of the Ontario MPP Legiskaters, I want to thank our gracious hosts from the Quebec National Assembly and the Montreal Canadiens. We'd like to invite Quebec legislators to Toronto for another exciting series for hockey supremacy. In the meantime, we'll be gracious champions.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The Minister of Education commissioners are already out talking about outsourcing, privatizing things like school custodial care and school secretaries. The commissioners are hearing how concerned people are about this idea, and the committee holding hearings on the minister's Bill 104 has heard from hosts of parents who stressed the importance of the school secretary and custodian to the safety and the wellbeing of their children.

But now the minister's cohorts in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are going in a totally different direction. It seems that they want to dump all school construction, maintenance, secretarial staff, bussing and who knows what else on municipalities.

This government has made a huge mess with mega-dumping, and now it wants to try to fix the problem by creating an even bigger mess. This is a $2.8-billion dump at the very least. It is an abandonment of the government's responsibility to provide good school buildings, and the Minister of Education knows how many new schools have to be built to replace hundreds of portables and how many schools are literally falling apart.

But even more than that, this would mean a huge loss of jobs and the disruption of hundreds of lives. It would be a huge loss for kids, because schools will be divided in half, with multiple employers, dial-a-cleaners and drop-in secretaries.

This government cannot fix the mess it has created by making another one. Why don't they just admit they have made a huge mistake with mega-dump and scrap the whole idea?

EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I want to respond to statements that the Minister of Labour made on Monday of this week, where she said, "At the present time, workers across Canada do not have secured creditor status under the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act." She went on to say, "I regret to inform you that the federal government will not be making any changes to the legislation, and so unfortunately our workers will not be protected and they will not have preferred status."

It's for that reason that in 1991 our government, under Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie, brought in the employee wage protection plan, retroactive to 1990, to deal with the thousands of workers who were being thrown out of work as a result of the free trade agreement and the ongoing recession. That provided workers with an ability to claim for wages, vacation, severance and termination pay that they were entitled to. It was this government, under Bill 7, that took away the right of those very workers to claim for termination and severance pay and reduced their ability to claim from $5,000 to $2,000.

That's what you did in terms of workers who are facing bankruptcy, and you have the audacity to stand in your place as a minister of the crown, as a minister of the Harris government, and blame the feds. You gutted that program that provided for workers, and unfortunately we're awaiting the other shoe to drop when you take away the rest of the plan so you can take $20 million more.

MATCH DE HOCKEY ENTRE DÉPUTÉS DES ASSEMBLÉES DU QUÉBEC ET DE L'ONTARIO

M. Marcel Beaubien (Lambton) : Le 21 février, au Centre Molson à Montréal, les députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario ont remporté une victoire de 13 à 10 contre les députés de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec. Cette victoire ne s'agissait pas d'une ronde constitutionnelle mais bien d'un match de hockey amical.

L'accueil chaleureux des membres de l'Assemblée nationale du Québec, des représentants du club de hockey Canadiens et du Centre Molson était extraordinaire. Un gros merci aussi à l'entraîneur de l'équipe du Québec. Le premier ministre, Lucien Bouchard, a finalement dû avouer que sa stratégie secrète n'avait pas donné le résultat auquel il s'attendait.

La stratégie de l'équipe ontarienne était d'avoir le premier ministre, Mike Harris, jouer sur l'aile gauche. Ayant beaucoup de difficultés avec cette position, on le retrouvait souvent, sans qu'il ne s'en rende compte, sur l'aile droite. Cette stratégie a eu un résultat positif pour le premier ministre Harris, car c'est sur cette aile qu'il a compté un but.

En conclusion, j'aimerais bien remercier le député d'Etobicoke-Lakeshore, M. Morley Kells, et son équipe, qui ont travaillé d'arrache-pied pour s'assurer du succès de la fin de semaine, et ce sans l'utilisation des deniers publics.

C'est avec fierté que l'Ontario sera à la hauteur du défi pour accueillir avec autant d'hospitalité à Toronto des membres de l'Assemblée nationale pour un autre jeu l'année prochaine.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REVIEW

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I'm pleased to announce that today Ontario is moving to improve service and reduce costs in its regulatory and adjudicative agencies. We will act on the recommendations released today in the third and final report of the Government Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, chaired by London South MPP Bob Wood.

Mr Wood has outlined a plan to produce an administrative justice system which is more streamlined, responsive and efficient. I want to commend Mr Wood and his task force for the excellent work they have done in identifying improvements in the very important agency sector.

The task force recommendations, to combine 35 regulatory and adjudicative agencies with similar client bases and mandates, to eliminate five agencies whose mandates are now obsolete and to streamline hearings procedures, will allow us to create a simpler, better coordinated and more service-oriented tribunal system for the people of Ontario. The redesigned system will mean better service and less red tape for individuals and businesses who are awaiting a decision by one of these agencies.

As you will recall, I'm sure, the task force report on the first phase, unveiled in May 1996, made recommendations concerning 50 government advisory agencies. The report on the second phase, which was released in January, examined 62 operational agencies. The government target is to save $220 million in taxpayers' dollars by March 1998 from the agencies, boards and commissions. Already we have identified $80 million in savings.

Regulatory and adjudicative agencies are independent bodies which operate at arm's length from the government. Of the 79 agencies examined by the task force, 19 were regulatory, 37 adjudicative and 23 combining both roles.

The task force made the following recommendations: five agencies be eliminated because their mandates are obsolete; 10 agencies are no longer needed because their functions can be delivered through other levels of government, the private sector or self-management; 35 agencies that deal with similar subjects, clients and decision-making procedures be consolidated into 10 larger agencies which will ensure continued access to the required base of expertise while at the same time reducing duplication and overlap; 26 agencies be retained in their current or a restructured form. Three agencies are currently undergoing broader review, and decisions will be deferred on them.

In addition to agency-specific recommendations, the task force also made sector-wide recommendations which will modernize and strengthen the delivery of administrative justice to the public.

Based on these recommendations, the government will be pursuing three reforms through a working group that will include agency participation. These three reforms are: simplifying and standardizing agency hearing procedures; coordinating and rationalizing the delivery of common services; and finally, requiring agencies to manage their performance and outcomes in a publicly accountable manner.

In conclusion, I believe this redesigned system will maintain the special expertise critical to ensuring sound regulatory and adjudicative decision-making while at the same time reducing delays and resulting in lower costs and better administrative justice service to the businesses and individuals in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Responses. The official opposition, member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): The people of Ontario will always welcome a review when a review is to look at ways to do better. The Ontario public will always be supportive of that. If this review, in particular certain areas of delivery of government services, is simply disguised in order to privatize certain segments, reduce wages and put people on the street, that is not going to be acceptable to the people of Ontario. A tax cut will do absolutely nothing for people who are no longer working or for people who are making significantly less.

My colleague would like to go further with other areas.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have no problem with the government taking a look at these various agencies and restructuring them in the interests of more efficiency. But I can tell you that the experience this government has had to date hasn't been that great. All we have to do is look at the efforts of the Attorney General and what he had to do with the family support program, which was supposed to be more efficient. As you know, it is a total disaster.

There are a couple of areas that have been targeted for elimination. I find one particularly disturbing and that is the Environmental Compensation Corp, in which the rationale is to relieve the taxpayers of the burden of compensation at the same time as this government is actually weakening environmental protection and is exposing citizens of this province to greater environmental hazards, yet the government is trying to distance itself from that responsibility.

I have other problems with some of the programs, and one has to do with the whole area of the Pay Equity Commission, where the statement says, "The government remains committed to supporting the principle of pay equity," but having said that, they want to explore other ways to deliver the remaining work of the commission. I would suggest to you that you find the other ways first before you announce that you're going to eliminate this particular commission, because as you know, pay equity is certainly an area that requires a great deal of attention.

I'm also curious to know the rationale behind the Ontario Provincial Police Grievance Board, about which you state: "The work of the board is necessary, but does not need to be delivered by an agency. The task force recommends eliminating the board and exploring other ways of delivering the service." That thread runs throughout this report where they announce, "We think you should get rid of these areas which are trouble areas for the province and explore other ways of doing it."

I suggest that before you announce you're going to eliminate these things, you come up with an alternative so that at least there can be some public discussion by those people who are going to be impacted by these particular initiatives to make sure that in fact the alternative is better than what is there at the present time. I think that is absolutely critical.

There's another one where they're going to deliver through another means, and that's the Public Service Grievance Board. The recommendation is that "the board be eliminated and other ways explored for delivering the service, including increasing the opportunities for private sector involvement." I suggest to you that is code for absolutely outsourcing, contracting out, and I think that again is an area that should be very carefully explored before the announcement is made.

There are areas that without doubt have outlived their usefulness. I think it's important that we try to rationalize these things. On the other hand, it's absolutely critical that we make sure that before we shut something down, we have something that is in place that is going to absolutely do the job it's supposed to do and that we don't put some of these programs at risk for the sole reason of trying to get some fiscal savings.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The Chair of Management Board's announcement today is remarkable in the sense that he wants to try to say to the public that he's going to save some money, but he very deliberately avoids telling people where the hits are going to be. He very deliberately avoids saying here today what areas of administrative law, what people, what institutions are going to be sacrificed to finance his tax scheme for his wealthy friends. Fortunately, we have a list of the areas that are going to be hit.

Let's look at the area of health. We know the government is vulnerable for health. We know this government wants to offload a lot of health care services on to municipalities and on to the municipal property tax. We know this government is closing hospitals and cutting hospital-at-home for the aged budgets, and this government knows that they're going to be all sorts of implementation problems. It knows it's going to have a lot of unhappy people out there who can't get the health care services they need and deserve.

What's the government going to do to make sure those people are shut out? Well, the Health Facilities Appeal Board is going to either disappear or be shoved to the side. The Health Protection Appeal Board, the Health Services Appeal Board, the Laboratory Review Board, the Nursing Homes Review Board -- Ah, yes, create chaos in the health care system, deprive people of the health care they need, but then deprive them of any means they have of having their issues addressed. That's what this is about.

Let's turn to the environment. We know this government doesn't give a hoot about the environment. The Premier says it's okay for the government to be figuring out legal defences when members of the public come to sue the government for not enforcing their own environmental laws.

If that sounds a bit like Mexico, it's exactly like Mexico. Mexico passes the environmental laws and then does away with any possibility of enforcing them. That's where this government is headed, only instead of putting their emphasis on enforcement, they're going to figure out unique legal defences to defend themselves from the public when the public wants to know why our environmental laws are not being enforced.

So the government brings in another step. On the environment, they're going to do away with the Environmental Appeal Board, the Environmental Assessment Board including the Niagara Escarpment.

We see here that health and the environment are going to help pay for this government's tax scheme for its wealthy friends.

But it goes further. The Environmental Compensation Corp: The government knows it's going to have a problem with all those members of the public who become angry and become concerned about the fact that their water, their land, their air is being polluted, and they're going to go after compensation, so the government's going to strike that off too.

Let's go down a little further. Ah, yes, the Pay Equity Commission. We already heard in the government's famous red tape report that it believes women who work in workplaces with 100 employees or less should get lower wages. This government already believes the Pay Equity Act should not apply in workplaces of 100 employees or less, so what is it going to do to facilitate that? They're going to do away with the Pay Equity Commission. They don't want the commission there to enforce pay equity. This government believes women should pay for their tax scheme for the wealthy and they're doing everything they can to ensure that happens.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission: This one's interesting. We already know from their red tape report that they want to totally turn around the Ontario Human Rights Commission. They want to put all of the emphasis on the victim. The victim will have to go out and hire their own lawyer, their own private investigator. The commission will not do anything to help them. The government's sensitive to that, so what do they say here? They're going to defer, for more study, the Ontario Human Rights Commission. People should not take any false sense of security in that. That is on the hit list as well.

Yes, the government's going to find some money for its tax scheme, but it's going to find it at the expense of people who need health care, at the expense of the environment, at the expense of low-paid women, and ultimately at the expense of human rights. Shameful.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): On Thursday, February 20, 1997, the member for Nepean (Mr Baird) rose on a point of privilege concerning the wording of a pamphlet produced by NDP caucus services.

The member was concerned about a specific statement in the pamphlet which states that: "The Harris Conservatives have downloaded more than $500 million in costs for services on to Metro. As a result, we will see services cut and property taxes rise dramatically."

I have to say to the member for Nepean that I cannot find a relationship between that statement and any particular parliamentary proceeding currently before this House. While the member has made an argument that the statement is somehow related to Bill 103, as far as I can determine, it deals with matters that are in fact not contained in that particular piece of legislation.

It is even impossible for me to know whether the policies referred to in this statement would be done through legislation or regulation.

The member himself stated that in his judgement the House has not debated one single bill with respect to the statement in question. In contrast, the subject of my ruling of January 22 clearly related to a proceeding of this House.

Therefore, I find there is no prima facie case of privilege or contempt.

In closing, I want to take this opportunity to advise all members of the House to reflect carefully on the wording used in such documents and to suggest that the Board of Internal Economy may wish to review its policy with respect to publications paid for by caucus services.

Yesterday the member for Oakwood (Mr Colle) raised a point of privilege relating to a recent court decision on Bill 103; the member for Dovercourt (Mr Silipo) and leader of the third party (Mr Hampton) raised similar points.

Before I deal with the specifics of the points raised, I want to address the issue of the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

It must be understood that as Speaker, I am restricted to ruling on matters of a parliamentary or procedural nature and not on questions of legality or constitutionality.

This is the view held by previous Speakers in this House and in other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. It is a view shared by the parliamentary authorities.

Citation 168(5) at page 49 of Beauchesne reads as follows:

"The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege."

In full awareness of these restrictions, let me deal with the concerns raised.

Members contended that the stance of the agent of the Attorney General in the court case respecting Bill 103 may be seen as contemptuous of this House by claiming royal prerogative and thereby diminishing the role of this House.

This is not the first time in the history of this House that members have objected to a submission that an Attorney General had made in a court of law. However, I have not found anything in my research that stands as an authority for the proposition that such submissions can raise a matter of order or privilege in this House.

The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the province and is empowered under the Ministry of the Attorney General Act,

an act duly passed by this Legislature, and it is not for the Speaker to define the limitations to be placed on the Attorney General's authority.

It would be very unusual, to say the least, for a Speaker to in effect pass judgement on such submissions that form part of the core function of the Attorney General.

Now, as to the assertion of some members that the appointment and actions of the trustees were carried out before passage of Bill 103 and therefore constitute contempt, I will remind members of my January 28 ruling on this issue, at which time I stated that "there is a legal issue involved in this course of action, however, and the Speaker cannot rule on the legality of the provisions contained in legislation or the actions of a government. These would be matters for the courts to decide." I think that events have unfolded which have borne that decision out. It does not now, by virtue of a legal decision, somehow become a procedural issue.

The member for Dovercourt in his submission yesterday argued that the Speaker should take certain actions in light of the court decision. I want to respond by saying to the member that his comments might more properly be directed to the government.

Also yesterday, the member for Fort William (Mrs McLeod) raised a point of order asserting that certain provisions in Bill 104 are similar to the provisions in Bill 103 that were the subject of the recent court ruling and suggesting that the Speaker should therefore take some action. The member for Dovercourt (Mr Silipo), the member for Oriole (Mrs Caplan), the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) and the Minister of Education all made submissions on this point.

I am going to begin by reiterating what I said yesterday. It is not within the authority of the Speaker to decide on a legal issue. I am not a judge and this is not a courtroom. Regardless of how close a parallel you see between the two pieces of legislation, the question of the legality of Bill 104 is a determination that rests with the courts and the courts alone.

In this regard, I want to refer the member to a decision rendered in the House of Commons of Canada.

On May 2, 1989, Speaker Fraser delivered a ruling following arguments that provisions of the Financial Administration Act were unconstitutional and therefore the bill should be ruled out of order, arguments that I found to be similar to those raised by the member for Fort William. Speaker Fraser stated the following:

"The Speaker should not sit in judgement on constitutional or legal matters. That role belongs more properly to the courts and the administration of justice."

Speaker Fraser concluded by stating that "the government has respected all of the procedures required by the House." The same can be said in the case of Bill 104. The procedures of the House have been followed. Fundamentally, there is nothing out of order.

It's time for oral questions.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, can I get a point of clarification on your ruling?

The Speaker: A brief clarification? Can we save this clarification? Because really it's neither a point of order or privilege, and there's nothing in the rule book that talks about clarification.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is what you're saying then that despite the fact that the government -- and this is a point of order, because I want to find out what the Speaker really means here -- is moving where the courts say they are moving illegally, there is nothing we in this House can do to prevent the government from moving forward with legislation which the courts say is illegal? Is that what you're saying?

The Speaker: That's really not a point of order. What I'm saying simply is this: It's not up to me as Speaker to decide what is legal and what is illegal. That is up to the courts to decide, and obviously, if it's deemed to be illegal, then the government would have to follow the law of the land. That's the catch.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Health. Today I want to speak to you in your capacity as the chief advocate for the protection of patient care in Ontario hospitals. I don't want to talk to you as the deputy minister, I don't want to talk to you about programs and policies and restructuring and billions of dollars; I want to talk to you about your role as an advocate for quality patient care in Ontario hospitals.

In that capacity you should understand that you can't cut $1.3 billion from hospitals and not affect the quality of patient care. You should understand that your actions are leading to the layoff of 15,000 Ontario nurses. You can't do that and not affect the quality of patient care.

We have raised with you a number of horror stories. We have raised those because they're in connection with the result of your first $365 million in hospital cuts. Notwithstanding that, you are bent on proceeding with a further $935 million in cuts. Do you understand that by your actions you are creating a health care crisis in Ontario?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): What would be wrong is to continue what has been going on for a number of years in the health care system, and that is to spend too much money on administration, on in many cases half-empty hospital buildings, on maintenance --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Nurses are not administration.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oriole, come to order. I want the House to be somewhat more orderly than yesterday. I would ask the members to allow the minister to answer.

Hon Mr Wilson: What we have seen -- because we're the last province to restructure our hospital system and our health system in a comprehensive way -- from all the other provinces, from governments of different political stripes covering the spectrum, is an improvement of health care services across the country, and it's time Ontario improved the system.

We have not removed $1.3 billion from hospitals. We are in the process of reinvesting every dollar that we've seen in savings so far from hospitals back into the health care system, including hospitals. Today our reinvestments far exceed in dollar amounts anything we've seen in savings from the system to date.

Mr McGuinty: Your job is to address the very serious problem of patient care in hospitals today. It's not to stand there and talk in some kind of a rarefied and abstract way about restructuring and what you're going to do in the future. Patients are suffering today, now, in Ontario hospitals.

Even your own experts say your cuts are not realistic in a three-year time frame. They say it's going to further hurt patient care, and your own hospital hatchet man, Duncan Sinclair, says your cuts are making him close hospitals first and figure out what replaces them later.

You won't listen to us; you're obviously not prepared to listen to patients who put their stories through us into this House. Will you not at least listen to your own experts, who tell us that you are hurting patients in this province?

Hon Mr Wilson: When the honourable member's party was in government in this province, and the previous government, just slightly under 10,000 hospital beds were closed. What previous governments failed to do was to reduce the administration then and to amalgamate those hospital buildings into fewer buildings.

We will have fewer hospital buildings in the province but we'll have more nurses, modern technologies, the newest drug therapies and greater access and higher-quality services in the buildings that remain. That is the goal of Dr Duncan Sinclair and the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

They are guided by the principles of improved quality, greater access and, yes, sustained affordability of the system, because many more people in the next few years will become senior citizens. They're going to require more hospital care and more health care and we're preparing the system for that inevitability while looking after today's patients.

The fact that your party and members from time to time bring up individual cases that point out problems in the system speaks volumes to me, and I think to the people of Ontario, that the system has to change. We have to learn from those problems and we have to work --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Your job is to lend comfort to Ontario's sick today. Your job is to reassure them that you will protect their right to quality health care. Far from reassuring them, Ontario patients and their loved ones are frightened of having to either stay in or visit an Ontario hospital. Health care is an extremely important issue, as you well recognize, and many people were induced to vote for your government because of an assurance that the Premier provided on province-wide TV during a debate. I want to repeat what he said. He said, "Certainly I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals." That is what your leader said.

So far, you've closed 10 hospitals. There are at least 18 others on the immediate chopping block, and we could very well end up with one third of Ontario hospitals being closed as a result of your policies. Just today you closed three more in London and you've stolen, on top of that, 70 million of their health care dollars.

Minister, will you admit today that it is your cuts that are causing the patient care --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: This government has not cut one penny of health care. The fact of the matter is, the budget is up significantly, and certainly at the level of $17.7 billion, it's some $700 million more than what the Liberals promised in their red book.

I think the honourable member has a lot of audacity to try and lecture this government about health care and about health care spending when it's your federal cousins, Mr Chrétien and Mr Martin, who have cut our health care transfers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister, just a minute. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: I would remind people that the facts speak for themselves in this debate. The federal government has cut us some $2 billion in health and social service transfers. We've had to cut many, many other things in government. There used to be about 30 cabinet ministers; there's 19 now. We got rid of our pensions. We've cut other ministries dramatically and we've put more money into health care because our goal is to have a more efficient, more accessible, modern health care system with the newest technologies to ensure that people are well served into the future.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: The question is for the Minister of Health again. A short time ago I received a letter from Mr Keith Cooper, a 32-year-old man from St Catharines. He was involved in a car accident in January of this year. He was rushed by ambulance to the Joseph Brant Hospital in Burlington, and there he lay on a hard backboard for several hours before being seen by a doctor. When he was seen, he was told that the hospital did not have the necessary diagnostic equipment and that it would be necessary to transfer him to another hospital for those purposes.

He stayed in a hospital bed for three days, in pain and not knowing what his injuries were, before being transferred. An Ontario patient in an Ontario hospital lay in a bed for three days after suffering severe injuries in a car accident, not knowing what he was suffering from and not having any diagnosis and not even having any commencement of treatment.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr McGuinty: How could this possibly happen on your watch?

Hon Mr Wilson: The fact that from time to time we have individual cases raised that point out problems in our health care speaks volumes for the need to restructure. If we had fewer and more efficient hospital buildings, we would actually be able to concentrate more services, more nurses, modern technology in those remaining hospitals. That's the consensus of the health care community, it's the consensus of the commission and it's the consensus of all of the experts who give this government advice and give your party advice, frankly, on health care.

That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to do it as quickly as possible so at the end of the day we have that modern technology available and when people see the blue H on the highway and they pull into one of our hospitals, it's not like what you did with closed emergency wards in Shelburne and throughout the province or 18-hour emergency wards rather than 24-hour emergency wards, but that they're full-service --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, I'm warning you to come to order; the member for Hamilton East as well. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- but that that blue H stands for a full-service, modern hospital with the latest technologies and the highest quality health care available in the world today.

Mr McGuinty: When it comes to improving health care in Ontario, your cure is worse than the disease.

This is what happened to Keith Cooper when he was finally transferred to another hospital: He was diagnosed as having shattered vertebrae and he was told he would require five hours of surgery to clean out the shattered bone and replace that bone with other bone from his hip. Throughout it all, he was in intense pain.

On the first day that his surgery was scheduled, it was rescheduled four times before being cancelled. On the second day, it was scheduled and rescheduled five times before being cancelled. On the third day -- this is the sixth day since the car accident; this man has yet to be treated. On the sixth day he received the surgery after it was rescheduled two more times. Six days after breaking his back in a car accident in Ontario, a patient is finally treated at an Ontario hospital.

In his letter, Keith talks about it taking over an hour for a nurse to arrive after his IV fell out, which was supplying --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, it would be very unfair to blame the restructuring for these problems. The restructuring is only --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, it's a final warning. You have to come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The hospitals monitor very carefully the quality, and they have quality councils to ensure that the quality is maintained and indeed enhanced. As we go through the restructuring, we're going to see dollars freed up so that the hospital buildings that remain will have all of the service needed to serve the patients who arrive at those buildings.

The fact that individual cases are raised today when the restructuring has not taken place, it's just beginning, speaks volumes for the need to continue to redouble our efforts and to move towards those modern, fully equipped hospitals that we all want for the people we serve in Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: Let's hear Keith Cooper's analysis of what's going wrong. He says: "The doctors, nurses, assistants and aides were cheerful and helpful despite being clearly overburdened. I noticed that all personnel spent their shifts in an unending frenzy of rushing from one duty to another just to prevent themselves from falling behind. In my case, and in many others I noted, relatives were either asked or simply volunteered to attend to the needs of their loved ones for lack of hospital personnel." That lack of hospital personnel is a direct result of your cuts. There is no two ways about it. Patient care is suffering in Ontario as a result of your actions.

Minister, do we have to raise more horror stories in here day after day after day? Do we have to tell you how your policies are hurting Ontario patients? Are you going to stand up right now and say, "I admit I made a mistake and I'm not going to proceed with the cuts"?

Hon Mr Wilson: Tens of thousands of Ontarians receive the best health care available in the world today right here in Ontario and in our hospitals. I'm very, very proud as Minister of Health, and I know all members of the government side are, at least, very proud of the work that our nurses and our doctors do to treat tens of thousands of patients every day in our over 200 public hospitals in the province.

In spite of the $2 billion in federal cuts to health, we spend 6% more per person in Ontario than any other province in Canada, and we're right up there with -- we're either number one, two or three in the entire world on health care spending right here in the province of Ontario, depending on how you measure it.

We spend enough money. The honourable member said that in the debates when he was running for the leadership of his party. We all agree that we have to restructure the system and make sure that money is spent on the patient you mentioned, and make sure that we continue every day to work towards improving the quality and making sure we indeed have a world-class system and Ontarians are confident.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Health. I would say to the Minister of Health that it's obvious to everybody else out there that you're not changing health care, you're cutting health care. I think you ought to own up to it.

Speaking about cuts, we've learned this morning that your hospital restructuring commission has decided that both mental health facilities in the London area, the St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital and the London Psychiatric Hospital, are to close. That means 300 beds for mental health gone. It means taking $46 million a year out of mental health in southwestern Ontario.

Minister, your commission made a recommendation. They recommended that you reinvest the full $46 million in community-based services. I ask you, will you make a commitment here today to reinvest the full $46 million in London, in southwestern Ontario, in mental health?

Hon Mr Wilson: During this 30-day process -- right now the commission has made its interim findings in London -- it's inappropriate at this point for the government to give its official response. That response will come during the 30 days and it will be made fully public.

I'll want to have further discussions, now that they've made some decisions, with the commission to see how they want that money spent. The commission has ordered, and we're all bound by this, that the plan be in place for mental health services before any of the changes are made in the psychiatric hospitals.

I will remind people again that the beds have been closed in those psych hospitals for years. They were built for almost 1,160 beds, I think, and for the last few years only 38% of those two buildings has actually ever been used to see patients. There's been a tremendous waste in maintenance and administration in those hospitals, and the commission is doing the right --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: What's interesting is that in Thunder Bay, in Sudbury and now it appears in London the minister has no trouble endorsing the commission's recommendations on closure of institutions, but when it comes to making a commitment to reinvestment he moves to the side, he moves back to the other side, he tries to find a place to hide.

The question is very simple. You're taking $46 million a year out of mental health in the London area, and your own commission is recommending that you reinvest $46 million a year into community-based mental health services. That's the question. I understand why you're trying to hesitate. You're trying to hesitate because you want to take that $46 million and slide it over to the Minister of Finance so he can put it into his tax cut for your wealthy friends. That's the real game that's going on here.

Minister, why don't you speak up for health care? Make the commitment today --

The Speaker: Thank you, Leader. Minister of Health, go ahead.

Hon Mr Wilson: We're making the commitment. The honourable member is premature. We might have to spend more than $46 million. That's been the case in other parts of the province so far with restructuring. We've actually had to spend more than what the commission is recommending in terms of community investments, and those plans and those announcements are well under way.

I must admit that the $46 million of new money on mental health for one area of the province is more than the NDP spent in its entire five years. You announced a community investment fund of $20 million, and during your entire five years you never spent one penny. That was $20 million for the whole province. We came to office in 1995, and one of our first announcements was to begin to flow $23 million into the community investment fund.

We didn't make airy-fairy announcements, and I'm not going to be pressured into making one like you used to make. When we flow dollars under our budgeting system, we mean those dollars are flowing and the real, hard services are going in place. We're going to work with the commission to make sure those services are up and running for the people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, I ask you to come to order, and the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Hampton: That lecture coming from a Minister of Health who not a month before the last election said, "No hospitals will be closed by a Progressive Conservative government" -- "No hospitals will be closed" was your statement -- rings hollow all across the province.

We have an example of some reinvestment. Yesterday when we challenged this minister about cardiac care, he came up with all kinds of excuses. He said that it was a matter of capacity. But today, after getting some letters from some physicians and having the facts explained to him again, he finally admitted that there had to be more reinvestment in cardiac care. If you are making policy, Minister, it appears that you're making it on the fly.

My issue is this. Minister, you talk about capacity. If capacity is not the availability of operating rooms, the availability of acute care beds, the appropriate number of nurses to care for patients, then what is it?

Hon Jim Wilson: I will apologize for my comments yesterday. I was in error. I had misread a note that was given to me by the department. I have corrected that error today and indeed we are flowing dollars immediately to the hospitals.

We made the largest single investment in recent years in cardiac surgery, some 19% increase in cardiac surgeries. We were told to do that last year by the Cardiac Care Network over three years. We flowed the dollars over two years -- so we speeded up the process -- and they've come back just recently when Mr Johnson was in the chair and asked for some more money to catch about 277 cardiac patients on the waiting list. We're going to flow those dollars right away to make sure those lists are shortened up and will be meeting on Monday with Mr Monaghan and others from the Cardiac Care Network to further develop long-range plans.

The province is growing a little older and getting incidents of heart disease even more often than the experts are predicting --

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

Mr Hampton: My next question is to the minister responsible for municipal affairs. I'd say to the Minister of Health, though, it is sad that people have to die on the cardiac waiting list before you recognize your mistakes.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, yesterday the Ontario Court of Justice threw out your attempt to assert a divine right of kings over local councils in Toronto. You've tried to shrug off the ruling, saying it has nothing to do with your legislation.

Minister, on January 14 in this Legislature you said, "However, as the trustees' right to examine municipal decisions will be retroactive to the day this legislation was introduced, it is in everyone's interests to cooperate with them."

It's clear that through Bill 103 and your trustees you are trying to intimidate municipal staff into doing something that you don't have the legal authority to enforce. You are wrong, Minister, and you are wrong about Bill 103. Will you go back to the drawing board, withdraw Bill 103 and sit down and begin a discussion with the people of Toronto?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I just want to ensure that the record shows that in that statement I made in January I also indicated that the trustees had no legal jurisdiction until such time as the legislation passed.

The court's decision yesterday only addressed the issue of processing an order in council prior to the legislation being passed. That's all the judgement called for. We have always said, as I indicated yesterday, that the trustees had no legal powers until such time as the legislation is passed. We've repeatedly said that.

What we wanted the trustees to do in the interim was to provide advice to municipalities after we introduce the legislation. It was the municipalities that were calling, asking who the trustees were and when they could meet to speak to them.

Mr Hampton: Sometimes this minister borders on the theatre of the absurd. This is what the judge said: You broke the law; you were acting outside the law. He said: "As a practical matter the municipal councils must conform now to...an act not yet in force. If these orders in council were allowed to stand, the government would be allowed to do indirectly what it cannot do directly." You'd be allowed to do unlawfully what you cannot do lawfully. The judge said you broke the law. Admit it -- now.

The real issue here is everything else you've done: You've been found in contempt of the Legislature, a prima facie case; you've accused the mayors of electoral fraud --

Hon Mr Leach: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The comments made by the member are incorrect and I'd ask that he -- that situation did not occur, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Although I know in the past that you've attempted to rise, I did think he added after "contempt," "on a prima facie case." I agree with --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister has a good point here. The House did not find a prima facie case of contempt, so we have to be clear on what it is we're saying in the future.

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): He came in to apologize.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): We're just helping him along. Listen to him.

The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, I appreciate your assistance. I would caution all members, when referring to that particular ruling, that we do so in the proper manner. Minister of Municipal Affairs, I accept that and I would caution the members of the House. Leader?

Mr Hampton: Speaker, to be sure, you found a prima facie case of contempt against this minister, and this minister accused the mayors of electoral fraud.

Minister, here it is: You've broken the law; a prima facie case of contempt against you; you've accused the mayors of electoral fraud. I'll tell you where this has gotten you: 68% of the people in Metropolitan Toronto now say they're going to vote no to your scheme.

Show some humility and show some credibility. Withdraw Bill 103 before you make another mistake.

Hon Mr Leach: I guess that's better than 90% that voted against the NDP in the last election.

To repeat --

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's all of their time. Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again to address the issue, it was the processing of the orders in council that was in question. To repeat, we have been consistent in stating that the trustees did not have any legal jurisdiction until the legislation was passed. I can tell the House that the work that has been done by the trustees over the past month has been of great assistance to the municipalities. As a matter of fact, there will be a number of amendments introduced to the legislation as a result of the input from the trustees and their interface with the municipalities over the time they were there.

We certainly accept the position of the judge yesterday, and the board of trustees has been directed not to carry out any more work until the legislation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Members for Cochrane South and Welland-Thorold, please come to order. Thank you.

Mr Hampton: To explain it again to the minister, the courts said you broke the law. You can try to finesse that any way you like; that's the fact.

There's another fact here. Deloitte and Touche, a respected chartered accounting firm, has just done an analysis of your KPMG report. I know you don't want to hear this. I know --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Government members, I appreciate the helpfulness of the government side as well, but it would be helpful if you just allowed him to continue.

Member for Durham East. Thank you.

Mr Hampton: This is what they say: "It is clear to us at this stage that there has not been put forth any concrete evidence that would support that there are savings of up to $865 million over the first three years and $300 million annually thereafter." That's what they say about your scheme: no proof whatsoever. They're basically being polite.

In fact, Minister, according to the Environics poll, 53% of the people in Metropolitan Toronto believe their property taxes are going to go up under your scheme; only 7% believe they're going to go down. The taxpayers believe your scheme is taking them in the wrong direction.

Hon Mr Leach: I've never heard of an accounting firm the member mentioned. However, the report produced by KPMG is backed up by KPMG, one of the most respected firms in North America, and I believe its numbers are correct.

I know that when amalgamation takes place and we have an opportunity to introduce best-practice standards throughout the new city, the costs of running government in this area will reduce. There will be the elimination of waste and duplication that we have now. There will be the elimination of six fire departments and seven planning departments and seven garbage departments. There will be substantial savings as a result of that as soon as this legislation is passed.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Ministry of Energy and it has to do with the safety of Ontario's nuclear generating stations. Minister, yesterday, after more than a year of delay, you finally released a damning report on the safety of Ontario Hydro's nuclear reactors. This report was hidden for over a year. In fact, Ontario Hydro even went to court to keep its contents secret, and now we know why.

That report makes it look like Homer Simpson would be very comfortable working at Ontario's nuclear reactors. We've got accounts of workers sleeping on the job. We've got accounts of workers playing computer games. The report describes further situations which, if not corrected, "increase the probability of a significant event, with serious consequences," at the plant.

Minister, what do you have to say to the people living in the shadows of our nuclear reactors? How can they expect to have any confidence in the safety of those plants with that kind of report in front of them?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): We are of course concerned with the safety of our nuclear facilities. The members for Durham West, Durham East and Bruce have been in constant contact with me over these kinds of issues as they are expressed by their residents.

The peer reports which the Leader of the Opposition is talking about were for the time period which was basically covered by the previous government and the previous chair of Hydro, from 1992 to 1995. There have been many corrective actions taken since that point in time.

The nature of a peer review report is like an internal audit and is practised by various nuclear facilities across the world. This is a very common procedure. By the very nature of disclosure of the information, it impugns the process in the future to have people come forward with honest, straightforward information. That's the theory of it.

Mr McGuinty: I have an internal memo of the Atomic Energy Control Board written in August of last year. It reads as follows, in part: "Pickering A risk assessment shows a relatively high severe core damage frequency. The severe core damage frequency as published is higher than is normally calculated in other risk assessments worldwide." It also says, "Nuclear safety, supervision and management issues continues to be a significant problem."

Minister, you're telling us that everything is fine or that the responsibility lies somehow with the previous government. This licence is up for renewal now. It was only extended for six months last time. The usual length of extension is for two years. That licence is up for renewal. When I hear, as a member of the public, that Pickering has a "relatively high severe core damage frequency," I get concerned. Why aren't you?

Hon Mr Sterling: Of course I'm concerned and of course I have to rely as a minister on the Atomic Energy Control Board, which is a federal agency, as you know, and is responsible for the regulating and licensing of these facilities. When they examined the safety procedures of the Pickering plant and issued a licence in December for a further six months, I presumed they knew what they were doing because they are a very credible organization and therefore approved what was going on there.

I might add that over the past six months the chairman of Hydro has recognized the concern shown by the AECB and last summer created a nuclear safety review committee to oversee the utility's nuclear program, and more recently, about a month ago, appointed a seven-member team of nuclear experts --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister. New question, third party.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé.

Êtant donné que vous avez fait cette promesse, êtes-vous prêt à renverser la décision de la commission de restructuration pour empêcher la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort, le seul hôpital francophone en Ontario ?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I thank the honourable member for the question. I know he's very sincere in stating the concerns that have been expressed by some members of the francophone or French-language community in Ottawa-Carleton. The Health Services Restructuring Commission, under the leadership of Dr Duncan Sinclair, I think shares your depth of sincerity on this issue. They've gone to great pains to ensure that a plan is in place and will be further developed to ensure that French-language services are available to the people who need those services in Ottawa-Carleton.

There are a number of health care institutions already in that area designated to provide those services now, and I think you'll see a maintenance of the level of service now available; in fact, I think you'll see an improvement.

M. Bisson : Ce n'est pas acceptable. Ce n'est pas ma sincérité que le monde d'Ottawa craint, c'est la vôtre. Je vous rappelle que c'est votre décision, c'est vous qui est en charge, c'est votre gouvernement qui va faire cette décision, et c'est seulement à vous, comme ministre de la Santé, de renverser la décision de cette commission.

Hon Mr Wilson: The hospital building itself doesn't provide the services; it's the people. Many of the staff from Montfort Hospital will acquire new jobs in the Civic and in the General and in the other hospitals that remain. It's the people who speak the language, it's the people who love the culture, not the building. Those people will move and they'll provide more services.

There was a case raised yesterday by the other opposition party about a patient being transferred from one hospital to another and allegedly not being able to receive services. There will be better French-language services. They will be required by the law. The law is fully intact, the French Language Services Act, as the people move to provide those services. The Ottawa Heart Institute, in fact, perhaps will gain under this scenario and have more people on staff who speak French, and that's where the heart surgery is done, not at Montfort Hospital. So I can see a number of scenarios where French-language services will improve for the people who need those services.

AQUARIUM

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Yesterday, Torontonians were greeted with yet another announcement of a world-class aquarium in a series, a procession of announcements that have been made over the years of such a proposal for an aquarium. Can you tell us what makes this one more likely to take place, and if it does take place, why is it taking place on crown land, on public sector land? What is the relationship between the operator, Ontario Place and the government? What will be the job spinoffs and what will be the spinoffs for tourism?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm very happy to respond to the member for High Park-Swansea. This is a very good example of more private sector participation with our government and it underlines the thrust of our government to have this happen. It's going to be located on public lands at the eastern end of Ontario Place. It is an investment of more than $80 million. It is a facility of more than 100,000 square feet. There will be 300 construction jobs and 150 full-time jobs. The forecast is two million visitors per year. It is very good news for Ontario's economic development and it means more jobs for our province.

Mr Shea: Now we come to the hard part of the question. The last time an aquarium was proposed for this municipality, there was a huge debate about whether there would be mammals such as whales and dolphins involved in the aquarium.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Tell us a fish story, Derwyn.

Mr Shea: It may not be of any concern to the members of the third party, but it is to a lot of other people in Metropolitan Toronto and beyond. Will you tell this House what will be the policy in terms of mammals at the aquarium? Will there be whales and dolphins held in captivity?

Hon Mr Saunderson: There's never an easy question from that gentleman over there, particularly when the seals over there are all making a noise. There will be many thousands of fish, many species of fish, and there will be one million gallons of water in the aquarium, but there will be no whales or dolphins. They will not be displayed.

There will be a special exhibit on Canada's marine life. The goal of the builders, Ripley Entertainment Inc, is to build the best aquarium in the world. There will be technical facilities for our schools and our university students. It's just another example of the confidence that will be shown in our special area of Toronto.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. Your restructuring of health care is continuing to create chaos across Ontario. You have created a crisis in almost every community. You have cut hospital budgets, and you are going to reinvest that into community health care. In my own community, you cut over $30 million out of hospital budgets. Then you moved to cut $8.5 million out of Macassa Lodge -- community health care. Let me give you a couple of examples of the impact this is having.

Mrs Fitzpatrick, a constituent in Hamilton Mountain, suffered a major stroke in August 1996 and was put on a waiting list for surgery in March 1997. In January 1997 she suffered another major stroke. Her doctor made it very clear in talking to us that it would have been avoided had she received surgery and medical attention earlier.

Ms Jeanette Guigue, of Hamilton, in July 1996 was brought into an emergency room in a Hamilton hospital as a result of chest pains. There was a shortage of beds, a shortage of nurses, confusion in the emergency room. She was released. An hour and a half later, she died in the arms of her common-law spouse at home. Can you explain to these families who have family members at Macassa Lodge how your cuts are not hurting people?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): In the time period the honourable member is discussing, we were just beginning to improve services in the health care system. The fact of the matter is that Hamilton is about to undergo, when the commission gets to Hamilton, restructuring. The fact of the matter is that today we're wasting money on things other than spending that money on patients. I think all members honestly agree that we have to pool the money and make sure that we have more nurses and more services available in the hospital buildings that remain.

The honourable member may wish to also bring the individual particulars of this case to the ministry's attention, and I'd be happy to facilitate that, because it's very important that as problems occur and as individual cases occur, every day we --

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

Hon Mr Wilson: -- ensure that we take every step possible to make sure that those problems don't occur again and that corrections are made.

Mr Agostino: I wish I could bring those cases to your attention, but in one she has already passed away and the other one has suffered a second major stroke as a result of waiting. It's a little late for those folks. Let me tell you that the chief of medical staff at Joe Brant hospital, Dr Ben Carruthers, in response to your cuts, said: "It's not the level of care a community expects or deserves. It will reduce quality and it will increase health care risks."

As a result of your policies, Joe Brant hospital has now put in a policy where men and women have to share rooms as a result of a bed shortage. That's a result of your cuts. That policy was abandoned many years ago across this province. Your own member for Burlington South suggested that accident victims or people who are injured in Hamilton or Stoney Creek, because there's a shortage in Burlington and the emergency room was closed, should now be taken to Joe Brant hospital.

You're now putting walls, you're now dividing communities, you're now putting hospital against hospital. How long can you continue this reckless abandonment of health care in Ontario and how many people have to die or be turned away from emergency hospitals before you come to your senses and restore some sanity to health care in this province?

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): In Alberta?

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan. Ask the Liberal health ministers, ask Dr King, the chair --

Mr Kennedy: It didn't work.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York South, come to order, please, and the member for Oriole. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: Ask Dr Russell King, chair of Canada's health ministers this year, who's undergone extensive restructuring in New Brunswick and was able to improve. Ask the Liberal health minister in Newfoundland who closed a hospital in his own riding and was able to show that access improved because they took a couple of hospitals that were half-empty, put them together and ended up with more nurses, more doctors, modern drug therapies and modern technologies.

That's what we're trying to do here in Ontario with the help of the Health Services Restructuring Commission. They themselves are recognized throughout the world as leaders in restructuring the health care system and we're using and relying on the advice from those --

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

PRINCE EDWARD HEIGHTS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to raise the concerns of people of the Picton area with respect to your proposed closure of Prince Edward Heights. As you know, this is a facility for people with developmental disabilities. There are about 228 clients living there, many of whom have lived there for most of their lives. Most of these clients are adults.

I want to be very clear with you: Our party supports deinstitutionalization and moves to the community, but you're closing this facility at the same time as you are cutting supports to the community. You can't transfer people to the community when the supports aren't there.

In addition to that, there will always be some clients who function at a level so low that they require the intensive supports like those at a facility such as Prince Edward. It is incredible. There's a ward system, with professional staff, kinesiologists and others who work with those low-level-functioning clients, that is world-class. There's a village setting that is phenomenal.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Ms Lankin: I actually believe if you went there and you saw that, you would agree with us that this is one facility that you shouldn't close, that you need that resource for the people who are there now and who will need that service in the future.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the concern that motivates the question. It's a very difficult issue as we try and do what many other governments have been doing, what many other jurisdictions are doing, and take people from institutions and give them better quality care in the community.

The member is right to point out that some individuals require different kinds of care in the community. Some are able to live more independently; others need round-the-clock care. That is one of the reasons why, in the announcement last year, we're taking the next four years to slowly build the community supports, so that as these transfers take place, those families can rest assured that their loved ones, their children will get the care they need.

As the honourable member also knows, one of the things we are doing in moving resources from the institutions is taking those resources and transferring them to those very important community supports. It was a move that her government supported as well.

The Speaker: Supplementary. Leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): We wanted to give this supplementary to your member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, Mr Fox, but he's not here any more, or not around, so I'll ask it.

I was in Picton a week ago for a community meeting to which you were invited, Minister. You were invited to the community meeting to talk about the closing of Prince Edward Heights. I went, you didn't, and I heard first hand from the people who were there that they see the community supports being cut; first hand that they know there are people now at Prince Edward Heights who can't survive in the outside community. They simply will not be able to exist in the outside community, especially if you cut the community supports.

I also heard that closing Prince Edward Heights affects the whole community of Picton. It means pulling $20 million out of the local economy in a town of 4,000 people.

Minister, I think you owe it to the residents at Prince Edward Heights and to the people who work there to go to the community and to hear their case. Will you commit to doing that, going there, talking to the people and seeing the facilities?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would like to remind the honourable member that I don't think trying to politicize this particular issue is going to help the families with the residents they have in this particular facility.

I would like to remind the honourable member as well that the Prince Edward Association for Community Living applauded the provincial government's plan to move people from institutions back to the community. They said last summer when we made this announcement: "This is a great day for people with developmental disabilities and their families. We hold the view that all people have a right to a decent life in the community. This is an important step on the path towards that vision."

I would also like to remind the honourable member that I can appreciate that members of the union who have staged the meeting and who wanted to get their concerns on the record have concerns about their jobs. I appreciate that. I have a concern about making sure that the services and the supports are there for those members who are moving from the institution --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I've been asked by a number of municipalities in my riding about the changes which are occurring as a result of the change of responsibilities between the provincial and municipal levels of government. Would the minister please tell me what process has been put in place to allow municipalities a say in the formulation of requirements for the $1-billion community reinvestment fund, the $800-million municipal capital and operating fund and the $700-million municipal social assistance reserve fund?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Norfolk for giving me the opportunity to tell the House about our partnership with municipalities and how we're going to deal with the Who Does What fiscal swap.

On February 21, I jointly announced with the Minister of Community and Social Services and the president of AMO the creation of two special transition teams that will be recommending ways of designing and implementing the proposed changes. Chairing both of the committees is Terry Mundell, president of AMO. The member for Chatham-Kent, Jack Carroll, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, will co-chair the social and community health services team, and the member for Oxford, Ernie Hardeman, who is the parliamentary assistant to my ministry, will co-chair the provincial-municipal team.

The first issue these teams will explore will be the design and distribution of the three funds to help ensure that the special needs of Ontario's municipalities are met.

Mr Barrett: Could the minister further inform the House about the reaction of the municipal community to the announcement of these two panels?

Hon Mr Leach: Again I would like to thank the member for his question, and share with all the members of the House the positive feedback we're getting from the municipal community. Municipalities have been assured that these teams, in the transition, will help implement the new municipal and provincial responsibilities in a very smooth manner. We're looking for advice from the municipalities on how best to proceed, and we are prepared to explore all the options with those municipalities. Terry Mundell, the president of the association, says that he feels very optimistic now that municipalities are at the table to assist us in this design and plan for change.

We feel it's essential for the province to work hand-in-hand with the municipalities, that we have to be partners in this process. They're there with us to make sure the transition works very smoothly.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, I listened with interest yesterday as you and the member for Huron bemoaned the fact that the Huron Board of Education was going to spend $7,500 on a court challenge to Bill 104 rather than spending it on textbooks. My first question is very simple. In fact it's a grade 5 mathematics problem. If the average textbook costs $25, how many textbooks can Johnny buy for $749,878?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm not surprised that the member opposite would ask the question. I'm a little surprised his research department couldn't give him the answer. Perhaps ours can, and I'll take the question under advisement.

Mr Bartolucci: Well, you could have asked any one of the pages who are in grades 7 and 8 and they would have told you. As the Minister of Education, you should have been able to figure out that you would have got 29,995 textbooks. Let me quote from Hansard when you said yesterday: "Spending $800,000...enough for textbooks for a thousand classrooms."

Minister, would you tell the people of Ontario that the answer you gave me to my order paper question is correct when you said: "The Ministry of Education and Training is running television ads featuring Premier Harris. The total cost of these ads is $749,878"? That's enough textbooks for a thousand classrooms. Will you tell the people of Ontario that the answer you gave me is correct, that $749,878 of their money is being spent on education ads featuring the Premier?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I welcome the question because it's an opportunity to address what is obviously a rather confused member. Yes, the government is getting its message out about changes to education to the people of Ontario, and improvements to education to the people of Ontario. Yes, we have boards across the province that have also issued information to people, and we have not objected to that. What we do object to is the cost being put into a legal format which is not necessary.

I can give the member opposite one more piece of information that may be useful to him. With our new funding plan we will make sure that the number of textbooks in the classrooms across the province is the number that is needed.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): With due respect to the Liberal Party, there is only so much time in question period. Clearly, if I get up the NDP will lose their question, and I think it's only appropriate that you respond appropriately with the little time left.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It's quite clear I won't have the supplementary, so I'll try to combine the questions.

Minister, this morning our leader, Howard Hampton, and the federal leader of the NDP, Alexa McDonough, wrote a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien urging him to break off negotiations with your government on the downloading of federal housing units. Tomorrow night hundreds of co-op members are going to be gathering together at a rally to fight this particular problem that they know is going to be one of the biggest worries they will have faced.

It's been estimated that if interest rates go up by 1%, it will cost municipalities $111 million a year. We fear and the co-op members fear that their plan to dump co-ops and non-profit housing on to the municipalities will put municipalities' property taxpayers and families at risk.

Minister, my question to you is: If the interest rates go up, who's going to pay?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): With the $6.2 billion in education costs coming off the property tax, that leaves a huge amount of room for municipalities to pick up the services we're asking them to be responsible for.

The municipalities have approached me and said, "We believe that we're best equipped to handle the administration and operation of social housing." Municipalities are responsible for social housing now. Have you ever heard of Cityhome? Have you ever heard of MTHA, the Metro housing organization? They're responsible for them now; they pay the subsidy now.

By the way, we're in negotiations with the federal government. We want to ensure that the federal money that flows to social housing from the federal government continues to do so, and I'm confident that it will.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), Mrs Pupatello and Mr Doyle exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business. I think that's what they want.

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

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I also move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

On the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr Kormos for Mr Wildman and Mr Christopherson for Mrs Boyd; on the standing committee on estimates, Ms Lankin for Mr Kormos; and on the standing committee on social development, Mrs Boyd for Ms Lankin.

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

PETITIONS

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 have affixed my signature.

FIRE SAFETY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from the firefighters of Ontario, and like all my colleagues who have read these, I will read one into the record today. It reads:

"Speed, experience and teamwork save lives. Don't get burned by Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I add my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the city of Scarborough is requiring individuals who want to participate in the mail-in referendum to provide their name, address and signature on the ballot; and

"Whereas this requirement is blatantly undemocratic and threatens the legitimacy of the democratic process; and

"Whereas the city of Scarborough makes no mention as to whether or not it will accept ballots from residents who wish to vote in confidence; and

"Whereas the question on the ballot itself is slanted towards the position of the city and cannot be viewed as a neutral question; and

"Whereas this uncertainty and undemocratic procedure makes the entire process a great misuse of taxpayers' dollars and tarnishes any results that will come out of the vote;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to

"

(1) Speak out against this undemocratic vote;

"

(2) Disregard the results of the vote; and

"

(3) Continue the proposed unification of the municipalities into one unified city of Toronto."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospitals are underfunded by approximately $122 million; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and cut desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas; and

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals;

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care to all Ontarians."

I affix my signature.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here signed by a whole whack of people concerned about what's happening to firefighters across the province under the guise of Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I have signed my name to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I continue to receive this petition from residents of East York. It's addressed to Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas the borough of East York is requiring voters in the current mail-in referendum to return their ballots in envelopes bearing their names and addresses; and

"Whereas the ballots are to be forwarded to the borough of East York at the East York Civic Centre and not to an independent elections commission; and

"Whereas the East York council has declared itself in favour of a particular result in the referendum; and

"Whereas the question itself is prejudicial in its wording and clearly slanted towards the result favoured by council; and

"Whereas all of the above factors violate well-established and universally acknowledged principles of a free democratic referendum process;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to:

"

(1) Speak out against the current flawed, undemocratic referendum in East York;

"

(2) Disregard the results of the vote; and

"

(3) Proceed with the government's program to provide for Toronto's future through the creation of one Toronto for all of us."

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition dealing with Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

This is duly signed, and I affix my signature to this as well.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's signed by people from Kapuskasing, Fauquier, Moonbeam and all throughout Cochrane North. I affix my signature to the petition.

REGENT PARK COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On behalf of the member for St George-St David, I have a petition in support of continuing Ministry of Health funding for the Regent Park Community Health Centre signed by a number of people in his riding, and I'm pleased to present it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have another petition addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services; and

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

I concur, and I will affix my signature to it.

FIRE SAFETY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

This is signed by 15 residents of Burlington. I agree with the petitioners, and I have signed it as well.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

That's signed by 46 people from my riding.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by a good number of my constituents from the Dryden area, and I attach my name to that petition as well.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by citizens from Hamilton, Stoney Creek and Burlington. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from my riding. I must say that the Minister of Health is addressing most of their concerns, but I will read it to the House. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition signed by over 100 people, presented by Rose Kulimowski and Mae Mussolum, who have been working very hard with their concern about health care. I have submitted these petitions before. It asks that the government maintain its promise to protect health care funding and to not cut health care. I affix my signature to this petition.

FIRE SAFETY

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have another petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

This is signed by 15 residents of Collingwood. I agree with the petitioners and I have signed my name as well.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas accidents are a common occurrence and because a report from the Rockland OPP shows that 23 serious accidents occurred on Highway 17 between Rockland and Orléans in the past eight months;

"Whereas a study shows that more than 18,000 cars travel on the stretch of 20 kilometres of Highway 17 every day;

"Whereas concept designs are done, public hearings were held and some pieces of land purchased,

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

"We ask that the Minister of Transportation, Al Palladini, put back the widening of Highway 17 from Trim Road to Clarence Point on his priority list as we ask the government to set aside the funds needed for this project before downloading Highway 17 responsibility to the municipality."

I affix my signature on this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr63,

An Act respecting the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company, Montreal Trust Company of Canada and Montreal Trust Company.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr73,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

Ms Mushinski moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les bibliothèques publiques de façon à situer à l'échelon local les pouvoirs, la responsabilité et l'obligation de rendre compte concernant la fourniture et la gestion efficace des services locaux de bibliothèque.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): As we begin second reading of Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, I would like to say how proud we are of our public libraries. Libraries in communities throughout the province have touched the lives of every Ontario resident and have made a very significant contribution to the quality of life that we enjoy.

The new library framework proposes both to improve library service to the people of Ontario and to lower the costs for those services. The framework would make a significant difference -- for the better, we believe -- to the public libraries of Ontario by giving municipalities the authority to make the best use of their library resources.

Our public libraries have served the province very well for more than 100 years. They have evolved from a disparate group of individual collections of books to an interconnected information network. Ontario's libraries have not only kept pace with the information revolution, they have indeed led the way.

The government knows that libraries are an essential building block in the development of a well-educated workforce, which is one of our province's greatest assets. This bill and a new regulation under the Municipal Act would together form a new framework for our libraries. Under this framework, the government proposes that local officials be given the authority and the responsibility to effectively manage their libraries to the best advantage of their communities in which the libraries serve. We believe that local officials will make choices which are right for their communities.

The framework would also guarantee that our history of quality service will continue. Free access to information is the cornerstone of our proud library tradition. Under the proposed framework, libraries would continue to offer free access to library facilities; use of library materials on library premises would continue to be free of charge, as would the borrowing of books and other print material by residents; borrowing of special format materials for residents with disabilities would also be offered by libraries without charge. The framework would clarify libraries' right to charge for other services.

This would permit the policies and fees governing these services to be set at the local level to reflect local priorities.

The essence of this bill is the placing of responsibility and authority for the effective management of our public libraries at the local level. Local authorities are the people who know what is best for their communities. The people who sit on library boards and on municipal councils are also patrons of their own libraries. They and their families will use and depend on the library resources in the communities. These are the people we can trust to make the decisions that are right for their libraries and for their communities.

At present, municipalities provide more than 80% of library funding, yet the legislation currently in effect prescribes an uncomfortable and often unclear mixture of local and provincial authority. The current Public Libraries Act creates extensive and unnecessary intrusions, dictating decisions that are best made at the local level. This proposed legislation defines the responsibility and authority for our public libraries and puts the onus of responsibility where it rightly belongs, at the local level.

This bill is part of a larger legislative framework which responds to the recommendations of the Who Does What panel. The review of library services undertaken by my ministry actually began before the work of the Who Does What panel. The goals of our review and the goals of the panel were very similar. Accordingly, the government's proposals on the new library framework are, by and large, consistent with the recommendations of the Who Does What panel.

The changes put forward by my colleague Minister Snobelen would relieve municipalities of the obligation to fund education. That measure, if adopted by this House, will free up municipal funds, which can be applied to other local services, including libraries.

We can also expect certain economies in libraries through the simplification of the administration of libraries. Most process-oriented requirements prescribed by the province under the Public Libraries Act would be removed by Bill 109. At present the province provides a small portion of the operational funding for libraries. The new library framework proposes that provincial contributions to operational funding be phased out. Provincial resources will continue to be directed at the network connecting Ontario's libraries.

Library users will be familiar with the advantages of this network, because a part of it is dedicated to the interlibrary loan system. We almost take for granted the fact that any library patron may request and receive a book from the circulating collection of any library anywhere in this province. In the future, the Ontario library network could connect our libraries with high-speed digital links over which information will be conveyed in multimedia formats. It is this umbrella network as well as policy support, strategic funding and forging partnerships that express the government's best role in our public library system.

I am pleased to recommend this bill to the members of this House. Its adoption would provide a solid basis upon which Ontario's public libraries can build their futures. This legislation and the new library framework can position our public libraries to continue to be the most accessible sources of information for the people of Ontario for another 100 years.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions and comments?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm intrigued by the minister's words today. What this is really about is downloading the responsibility and the having to pay for library services to the already overburdened municipal taxpayer.

We know that in this so-called wash the cost of this municipal downloading is at least $1 billion, and that is being charitable. We know this government has disregarded the comments of people like David Crombie. We know what they are about to do and what they are doing is at total odds with every recommendation made.

I wonder if sometimes the ministers of the crown have been out into communities like Manitoulin, Espanola, Elliot Lake, Spanish, Massey, where library services are very important but very difficult to provide. I know, because I've received petitions and letters from librarians throughout the constituency, that this is not what they wanted to happen, Minister. This is, I repeat, not what the people who were concerned with library services wanted to happen.

They did not want to see user fees introduced in a big way. They did not want to see library services curtailed, because many of our libraries in the smaller communities are not going to be able to exist. When municipal councillors have to choose between fixing the pothole and providing library services, I know which one they're going to choose, and it won't be library services. From a government that doesn't believe libraries are part of the educational system, I find this incredible.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'll have the chance to speak on this bill a little bit later on, but I just want to make a couple of comments and actually ask the minister if she would answer a couple of questions. There are three statements she made that I have to say I agree with. The first statement she made was that she's proud, as I am, of our public libraries. The second is that our public libraries have kept pace with the information revolution. The third is that free access to information has been and continues to be the cornerstone of the system.

With that in mind, I would like the minister to tell me, please, why it is that a fundamental part of this bill is to actually do away with the protection that now exists in legislation for free access to the use of libraries and free access to the borrowing of materials. That provision, as you may know and as the minister surely will know, is being taken out of the legislation and put under regulation in a watered-down version, because only certain things, such as the borrowing of print materials, will be allowed under the new regulation, and that, in and of itself, by regulation.

If that is such a fundamental principle, I wonder if the minister would comment on why she's taking this out of the legislation and putting it into a regulation, where it can be changed with a quick decision by cabinet, as opposed to the fundamental protection that exists now in the legislation and which in our view should continue to exist in the legislation.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today in support of what I consider our minister's very progressive piece of legislation, Bill 109, overdue amendments to the Libraries Act. In review of that, I spoke to our local chief librarian, Cynthia Mearns, and she was supportive. She recognized that there were challenging times in the economy today and she also was quick to point out to me that today the grants to the local governments of libraries have been steadily declining over many years and many governments.

But she was also pleased to say that the municipalities now had control over their own library boards and that there were still at arm's length library boards dealing with the governance of and fair access to library services. The minister has protected the very cornerstone of libraries in Ontario. That is access to free books and loans and access to our libraries and the ambience they provide our citizens. I'm speaking very much in support of this, along with, I might add, many of the municipal leaders and the librarians throughout Ontario.

Terry Mundell was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen on January 16 stating he welcomes the change and does not believe budgets will be decreased as a result. So I believe our municipal partners are fully responsible for the important service that libraries provide for not only our students, but our senior citizens and indeed a wide range and wide variety of our citizens in Ontario.

The minister has consulted broadly -- I know that; I've spoken to her directly -- and she's listened. She's come up with what I consider a fair and reasonable solution to libraries in Ontario, ensuring full and free access, but also affordability.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : Encore une fois cela demande que le gouvernement veut transférer tous les services aux municipalités, mais aussi sans leur donner le pouvoir. Encore une fois aujourd'hui, cela demande que nous retirons des fonds qui étaient déjà garantis aux municipalités, des fonds qui étaient de très grande importance pour l'éducation, surtout chez nos jeunes. Lorsque nos jeunes doivent entreprendre des recherches, ils se rendent à la bibliothèque publique. On fait les recherches et ensuite nous complétons notre devoir, nos recherches que nous avions à compléter.

Mais aujourd'hui, avec ce transfert, où nous donnons la responsabilité aux municipalités, cela demande que le prêt de livres qui fonctionne actuellement entre les municipalités va cesser. Je crois que les municipalités, lorsqu'ils prendront la décision soit de réparer les routes ou d'améliorer les services à la bibliothèque, c'est définitivement la bibliothèque qui va en souffrir. J'ai toujours dit, une ville sans bibliothèque, c'est une ville morte.

Encore une fois, cela demande que le gouvernement n'a aucun respect envers les personnes qui doivent se servir bibliothèques à tous les jours ou à toutes les semaines, selon le temps qui le leur permet aussi. La lecture est très importante. C'est un point d'éducation qu'on doit regarder chez nos jeunes et aussi bien chez nos adultes, qui veulent se dire à date avec l'évolution de notre pays.

Encore une fois, je crois que c'est une très méchante décision de la part de ce gouvernement de transférer la responsabilité à 100 %. Même si nous avons la responsabilité, du moins on devra avoir les fonds nécessaires pour sauvegarder les bibliothèques, surtout dans le secteur rural.

The Acting Speaker: The minister has two minutes to respond.

Hon Ms Mushinski: In response to the honourable member for Dovercourt, I might remind him that under Bill 26 all boards were given control to charge fees. What this regulation actually does is limit a library's ability to charge fees for basic book borrowing and access to libraries. Because municipalities will now have control over local libraries, which is what the Who Does What process was really all about, access must be given under the regulation under the Municipal Act. That's the reason that was done.

I would remind him that the whole purpose of the consultation process, and the message that we heard through the consultation process, was that we must protect the basic underpinnings of public library service, which are free access and free book loans. That's what this bill contains. That's what was recommended by the Crombie commission. We believed all along that it was sacrosanct to the basic requirement of public libraries. Clearly, we have listened to that consultation process and we have enshrined it within the act that's before us today.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): At the outset, our critic on libraries will be, with unanimous consent of the House, doing the 90-minute portion of the address at a later time. I wonder if we might have unanimous consent that that 90 minutes --

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 109 and to say to the minister that I think she appropriately put it in context, which is that it's part of an overall government program following the Who Does What committee's report. I think by now the public is aware that these are a few of the bills we're dealing with as a result of it. There are probably about 12 or 13 quite major bills in the Legislature or at committee now that comprise the package on the government restructuring. This bill deals with libraries.

The minister appropriately outlined the two major changes this bill implements. Just to express some concerns about those two major changes, one is that the bill does indeed ensure that if you are looking to access a book, printed material, you will continue to be able to do that free of charge. That goes back to the history of libraries, which were designed to ensure that all of the people in the community, regardless of wealth or income, had reasonable access to books, literature and things like that.

We are now, as we all know, in an era of technology. The printed book will still be with us in the future, but the growth is in electronic information. As a matter of fact, the minister said that the big innovation in libraries is a province-wide electronic linkup between libraries. So it's no accident that yes, you will in the future, I gather by regulation -- and the public should recognize that legislation requires a debate and something to happen publicly. Regulations can be changed like that.

The only way you even know about it is if you read some obscure document called the Ontario Gazette, which comes out on a Saturday, strangely enough, and you find out there that the regulations have changed.

The thing that is protected only by regulation is that you can borrow books freely, but now your access to all of the electronic -- the future, the whole growth area -- will depend on your wealth. Believe me, libraries are right now and will in the future be in a constant battle for resources because the second thing that this does, without any doubt, is put libraries in the hands -- total control -- of councils.

That's what municipalities wanted; that's what they