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

February 12, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L161 - Wed 12 Feb 1997 / Mer 12 Fév 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

STELPIPE LABOUR DISPUTE

WOMEN'S SHELTER

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

HEALTH SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

BRANTFORD HOSPITALS

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ASSISTED HOUSING

CHILD CARE

FUEL SPILL

MACASSA LODGE

PROPERTY TAXATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

EDUCATION REFORMS

CLASS SIZE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

TRANSITION HOUSE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SENIORS' ISSUES

FIREARMS CONTROL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

MANDATORY INQUESTS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The bully government that brought us Bill 26 a year ago is at it again, steamrolling legislation that brings about major changes to the way we are governed and the way vital services are provided. In this case, what is at risk with this government's agenda is the future of public education itself.

Today we will vote on second reading of Bill 104, and only three opposition speakers in total have been heard.

On Monday we begin hearings on Bill 104, dealing with the amalgamation of school boards, an item on which 951 people have already asked to make their concerns known before those hearings have even been advertised. But this government wants this bill fast, just like the megacity bill, so it can just roll along and do whatever it is it wants to do next. That means at least 1,000 people are going to be shut out and won't be heard on an issue that will affect generations of future students.

This government, over and over again, has shown a contempt for public opinion. We saw that clearly in the refusal to have hearings outside Queen's Park on municipal amalgamation. We saw it clearly when the Minister of Education locked out the parents of Annette Street public school who thought they should have some share in a discussion about the education of their children. Now we see it again, almost 1,000 people shut out by a government that is in a big hurry to give sweeping new powers to a non-elected, non-accountable commission. Even the limited hearings we do have are probably a sham, because this government is not likely to listen with only one afternoon on third reading.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

STELPIPE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, in Welland the 386 workers at Stelpipe Page-Hersey were forced on to a picket line November 1 of last year and remain there because of Stelpipe's refusal to negotiate. Only three times at the table, once for 10 minutes, once for 45 minutes and the last time for a mere 10 minutes when Stelpipe, in the most disappointing and cynical of bullying tactics, announced it was pulling its offer off the table.

Those workers, members of Local 523 from the Canadian Auto Workers, are seeking the most modest of improvements in their wage package, seeking some parity with other Stelco operations in the wages there, and seeking some decency for pension benefits well deserved by hardworking workers at that operation who have made profits for that company year in and year out.

I'm going to tell you, Mr Speaker, Stelpipe may think it has licence from this Harris government to beat up on workers and to attack trade unionists and to attack collective bargaining, but Mitch Labrie, the very capable shop chair of these workers, has the full support of those 386 striking Stelpipe workers, and those Stelpipe workers have the full support of their community: small business, seniors, other workers, young people and myself included.

I'm proud to be out there, as I have been, on the picket line with these Stelpipe workers as they're seeking some modest justice for working people in that workplace. Stelpipe won't win this game.

WOMEN'S SHELTER

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Recently I had the opportunity to attend the opening ceremonies of the Northumberland shelter and resource centre in Cobourg, operated by Northumberland Services for Women. This facility provides shelter and support throughout Northumberland county to women and children seeking immediate refuge from abusive situations.

Before construction of this new facility, up to 14 women and children shared three bedrooms and one bathroom. Now they will have the opportunity to begin confronting the problems with some measure of privacy. The more central location of the new shelter also addresses the past problem of access for those with limited or no mobility.

Women will also have access to a resource centre located beside the shelter. This centre provides women with follow-up counselling, as the average length of stay is only 14 days.

This project reached fruition through the coordinated efforts of many dedicated people. I extend a special thank you to Mrs Anita Blackwood, the chair of the board of the Northumberland Services for Women and the chair of the shelter committee.

The government of Ontario demonstrated its support for protecting women and children in this province by providing some $960,000 in grant money, which in combination with the agency's fund-raising efforts made this new and much-needed facility a reality in the county of Northumberland.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In my part of eastern Ontario, as in much of the rest of the province, hospital closures, bed closures and deep cuts to the health and hospital programs are the central issue facing the community.

In Pembroke, just before Christmas of last year, the hospital restructuring commission came to town and slammed the door shut on a century-old public hospital, the Pembroke Civic Hospital, and in so doing took away not only a century-old facility but removed $14 million from the hospital budget of our community.

Last week the Ministry of Health came to town again and removed $1.6 million in annual funding to public hospitals in Deep River, Barry's Bay, Renfrew and Arnprior. That means that in the last six weeks the Ontario government has removed over $16 million from hospital budgets in my part of eastern Ontario. They are doing so, they say, on the basis of some new hospital bed standard.

I ask again today, as I did some weeks ago, to the Minister of Health, I want to see the list of any and all Ontario hospitals that are currently meeting this new bed standard. Thus far, I have no list and I'm beginning to believe that I'm not going to get one because none exists.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You will know that day after day I have been rising during members' statements to tell the Legislature about community meetings I've been attending. My colleagues and many people in this House are now attending two to three meetings a night, all revolving around citizens coming together to discuss this government's proposed changes to our local governance, the megacity bill, and also to discuss changes to the education system through Bill 104. I have to tell you that at every meeting I go to there are hundreds of people, and as I leave, those hundreds of people are exiting with anger and real disgust at the way in which this government is proceeding.

People do not want to see a government just ram through legislation without listening to them, and that's the feeling they have; that's what they see. I hear words describing the government that they're bull-headed, that they're arrogant, that their approach is completely dismissive of citizen input. I'm sure the government doesn't want to be labelled that way, but unless you listen to people, those labels are going to continue. In all my years of political activity, before being elected and since being elected, I have never seen citizens so upset, so concerned and so ready to come out and have their voices heard.

Parents in my riding are meeting regularly about the education changes now. They are absolutely opposed to them. Large meetings are being held school by school; petitions are coming in and later today I'll be presenting these. Their voices will be heard.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Last week three Ontario centres hosted athletes from 80 countries that took

part in the 1997 Special Olympics World Winter Games, the first time these games had been held in Canada. These special athletes demonstrated with determination and pride that doing your best to achieve a goal can be as rewarding as reaching it. My congratulations to the games organizers, the coaches, volunteers, supporters and to the host communities of Toronto, Collingwood and Duntroon for giving these athletes memories they will cherish forever.

This summer, Chatham-Kent will be host to the Ontario Special Olympics Games. From August 7 to 10, more than 850 Special Olympics athletes and coaches from 12 Ontario regions will arrive in Kent county to participate in such events as softball, soccer and track and field events. The event will also serve as a qualifying competition for the national summer games being held in 1998. Throughout the Chatham-Kent area, hundreds of volunteers, under the guidance of police constable Peter Bakker, who serves as chair of the games, are already hard at work making sure everything is ready for that wonderful week in August.

Special athletes from all parts of Ontario will gather in Chatham-Kent to spend a week in competition. They'll be treating the rest of us to marvellous displays of sportsmanship and skill. I'm sure all members join me in wishing them a successful event, and I extend an invitation to everyone across the province to attend the Ontario Special Olympics --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Another step in the direction of the Americanization of our health care system became evident with the news that Rural/Metro Corp is moving into Ontario by combining with seven privately run services already here in our province. Rural/Metro Corp now provides emergency services to more than 200 American communities and is looking to expand in a big way into the Ontario market, beginning with the half-million population it will serve as a result of its initial merger.

With the Harris government decision to dump responsibility for ambulance services on to the lap of municipalities, along with so many other items, it is obvious that the giant health care corporations in the United States would move in like vultures to grab a service that many municipalities are reluctant to take on.

With profit as their motive, will the US health care companies want payment up front and a far higher price for their services? It would be a sad day indeed when patients would have to produce their credit cards before entering an ambulance and incur huge costs for transportation and supplies. How many vulnerable people, faced with a higher price tag and an obligation to pay for ambulance services up front, will opt for a ride in a non-emergency vehicle unable to proceed rapidly and without proper lifesaving equipment?

The Premier should do what is right: retain ambulance services as a provincial funding responsibility and ensure that patient care, not profit, is the major consideration in the delivery of Ontario health care services.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): My statement today is on the restructuring and the effects of the bully Bill 26, the effect it's having on the downloading and restructuring of the municipalities in northern Ontario.

In the past year mayors, reeves and town councillors across the province have been working hard to fully analyse the impacts of this government's sweeping reforms that will dramatically affect all municipalities of Ontario. Municipal leaders say there are a large number of issues to be addressed but nobody at the government or the ministry knows the answer.

They are also facing a dilemma: Either they come up with an amalgamation plan of their own and restructure and reduce the administrators and elected leaders or they will face the risk of having something shoved down their throats. In fact, this government plans to introduce legislation within the next few weeks to force non-organized territories and municipalities to amalgamate and plans to eliminate up to 500 municipalities across the province. The amalgamation of smaller municipalities with bigger towns demanded by this government will mean the loss of the distinct character and autonomy for the small towns administrated by the larger centres.

When asked about the $1-billion transition fund for municipalities at the ROMA convention, the parliamentary assistant said that only municipalities which are voluntarily bringing an alternative plan to the restructuring imposed by the government will be eligible for this funding. The status quo means that you are on your own -- no dollars. In other words, your government has no respect for democracy and is holding its heavy-handed measure over their heads. You're telling them to swallow the poison or they'll get shot. Some choice.

BRANTFORD HOSPITALS

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I rise in the House today to applaud and congratulate two hospitals in my riding for their innovative efforts in saving money.

St Joseph's Hospital in Brantford, long-known for finding cost efficiencies by maximizing its economies of scale through group purchasing as part of the St Joseph's health care system, has spearheaded a six-hospital group purchase of hip and knee replacement implants, including additional accessory items routinely used during joint replacement surgery, which will see overall savings of more than $1 million for the six hospitals involved over the next four years. More than $432,000 of those savings will benefit St Joseph's Hospital in Brantford as well as the Brantford General Hospital.

This represents an unprecedented agreement between 18 orthopaedic surgeons at six different hospitals to standardize the type of implants used in these procedures. Equally as important, it signals a recognition that we can find savings in new and creative ways if we are willing to look for them. The money saved on the implants will be reinvested by each of the hospitals involved on other priority items.

Again, I offer my congratulations to the creativity and innovative spirit of cooperation shown by each of the six hospitals as they ably demonstrate their commitment to patients in Brantford.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a report and required amendments from the commissioners of estate bills with respect to Bill Pr63,

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

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 86(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I have some rulings dealing with various concerns raised by members before question period on Thursday, February 6, 1997, and a further ruling in response to a point of privilege raised on Monday, February 10, 1997, and I'm fairly sure you're all interested.

I ended up doing more research than I anticipated, but I thought it was warranted in view of the importance of the matters raised.

The member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) inquired as to whether the Speaker had taken or would be taking steps to ensure that the assembly was informed of the impending criminal charges against the member for Welland-Thorold.

Let me confirm at the outset that I have received no official notice that the member for Welland-Thorold was going to be or has been charged, nor would I expect to.

However, I am not convinced that the assembly is obliged to receive notice that the member for Welland-Thorold will be or has been arrested. That view was not immediately obvious to me because, as the member for Algoma indicated, citation 88 in Beauchesne indicates that "from British practice it would seem that if a member is arrested the House should be informed, through the Speaker, by the judge or magistrate concerned."

I want to make the following observations on this reference:

First, given that the member for Welland-Thorold had yet to make an appearance in a court of law, I have some difficulty understanding how it could be that the House is supposed to receive a notice from a judge or magistrate.

Second, the authority for this citation from Beauchesne is a specific passage from Erskine May, a passage that makes clear that it applies to a member who is being detained from service in Parliament.

Third, the citation indicates that it has never been invoked with respect to the Parliament of Canada.

Finally, my review of recent instances in which a member of this assembly has been arrested suggests that there is no practice to the effect that the House or the Speaker receives notice of a member's impending arrest. It is not necessary for me to determine whether or not the House must be informed of the arrest of a member in circumstances where the arrest is accompanied by detention from service in Parliament, since that is not the situation that the member for Welland-Thorold finds himself in as of Thursday.

The closest this House has ever come to receiving official notice of criminal process against a member of the House was on June 27, 1977, when a judge's letter to the Speaker and the Clerk of the House was tabled in the House. The letter indicated that the judge had committed a member of the House to prison for refusing to testify as a witness at a preliminary hearing. That case is easily distinguishable from the case involving the member for Welland-Thorold.

In view of these observations and findings, I find that the interesting point raised by the member for Algoma does not raise a matter of order or privilege.

On a separate but related matter, the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin) expressed some concerns relating to remarks made by the Attorney General (Mr Harnick) in this House on November 7, 1996, about an incident involving the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) and the member for Sudbury East (Ms Martel). The government House leader (Mr Johnson) and the Minister of Environment and Energy (Mr Sterling) spoke to these concerns.

Before I respond, I want to be very clear about two things: First, the Speaker cannot decide a legal or constitutional matter. Second, I do not want to say anything in this ruling that will prejudice the disposition of any legal proceeding relating to the November 7 incident. In getting those two statements on the record, I am not saying that the member for Rainy River or the member for Beaches-Woodbine has asked me to do otherwise: I am simply conveying how I intend to comply with standing order 13.

The member for Rainy River specifically mentioned the standing orders dealing with sub judice. Standing order 23(

g) states that it is out of order for any member to make reference to any matter that is "pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination or that is before any quasi-judicial body constituted by the House or by or under the authority of

an act of the Legislature." Now, my reading of that ruling is that sub judice applies to cases pending before a court or quasi-judicial body. This does not include matters pending or under police investigation. My research on this subject confirms this view.

At the time the Attorney General made the comments in question, I do not believe the matter was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding.

The member for Rainy River also argued that the remarks of the Attorney General on November 7 could be considered as making allegations or imputing motives contrary to standing order 23(

h) and (i). I looked back on my ruling of November 18 and while these rules were not explicitly canvassed, it did essentially address the issue of orderliness of those remarks.

The issue raised by the member for Rainy River then is not a point of order.

However, the member for Rainy River also submitted that the remarks amounted to more than a matter of order, they amounted to a breach of privilege and bordered on contempt because they interfered with, showed disrespect for or prejudiced the justice system.

Both the member for Rainy River and the member for Beaches-Woodbine referred to a legal opinion which indicated that the actions of the Attorney General were "inconsistent with constitutional convention."

To these submissions, I have to respond by saying that after reviewing the parliamentary authorities on this issue I cannot see how the members' concerns fall within an existing head of privilege. Similarly, based on what my January 22 ruling had to say about contempt, I do not see how the members' concerns amount to a prima facie case of contempt. I will reiterate what I said in my ruling on November 18, that "while this may be a question that will have to be answered by some other authority, it is not a question that can be decided by the Speaker."

The member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) rose on a point of privilege on February 10 with new information on a matter raised previously with respect to the printing of party material at public expense.

Members will know that the provision of funds to the caucuses for print material is administered by the Board of Internal Economy and that there is a policy that governs that funding. All parties -- all parties -- would be well advised to carefully peruse the established policy.

To the member for Algoma, I have to say that while this does not constitute a point of privilege, it is certainly a matter for consideration at the Board of Internal Economy.

Finally, on the matter that the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley) raised, he also rose on a question of privilege on February 6 concerning a series of government-sponsored television commercials. I want to say to the member that I have not yet had an opportunity to review the commercials in question, but that I will do so very soon and report back to the House.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. For weeks now we've been telling you that your numbers were quite clearly wrong. We told you that you were shortchanging Ontario property taxpayers to the tune of $1 billion. You, of course, told us that we were all wet, that we did not know what we were talking about. In fact, you added that worried municipal officials who were crunching numbers right across the province were whiners when they came to the conclusion, after their work, that this was not a wash.

This morning one of the most senior officials in the Ministry of Finance, Anne Evans, the assistant deputy minister, confirmed what we've been saying all along: When you add up your errors and omissions, we are looking at a $1-billion property tax hike province-wide.

Premier, the jig is up. The truth is out. Why don't you have the good sense and the decency right here and now to admit that you've made a mistake?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Ms Evans provided some numbers to a reporter who put them down in such a way it omitted the $800 million that's there for transition assistance, omitted $700 million that is there, included some numbers that have already been relayed to municipalities and have nothing to do with who does what.

Let me say that one newspaper has numbers, another has numbers, municipalities have numbers, and there's numbers and there's numbers and there are figures. But I want to be very clear about something that's important. Nobody knows for sure, doing things in new ways, what the numbers will be. We have clearly acknowledged this. What we do know is this: If you continue to use numbers attached to programs delivered in the old ways, you will have a $35-billion deficit in Ottawa, you'll have an $11-billion deficit here, you'll have a 100% increase in property taxes --

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

Mr McGuinty: Premier, let's keep our eye on the ball. We're talking about your numbers produced by a senior official within the Ministry of Finance who tells us that we're looking at a $1-billion property tax hike to be applied province-wide. That's what we're talking about.

I'm saying that it was a mistake. Someone more cynical would say that you knew that the numbers were wrong and that you were deliberately attempting to hide the fact that you were dumping $1 billion on to property taxpayers. I, myself, would not say that. I'm claiming that it was a mistake.

Premier, for three weeks we have been telling you that you've made a $1-billion mistake. The mayors, the taxpayers federation and the board of trade have been telling you the same thing. Now even senior officials within one of your own ministries, the Ministry of Finance, is confirming what we've been telling you all along. Premier, why don't you just do the right thing? Tell us you've made a $1-billion mistake.

Hon Mr Harris: As fun as it is hitting these things out of the ball park, the Minister of Finance wants to take over.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The assistant Deputy Minister of Finance said no such thing. She did not.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: I see the chorus is back, Mr Speaker, and they're in tune too today, which is quite unusual.

What was on the front page of the Globe and Mail today was numbers supplied by Gerry Phillips, your finance critic.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: That's an impartial source, I know.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Eves: I'll tell you what's wrong with Mr Phillips's numbers of $1 billion a year. We can go through them --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Anne Evans.

Hon Mr Eves: No, they're not Anne Evans's numbers. It's not anywhere quoted in that

article attributable to her, absolutely not. It is somebody's

interpretation of what Anne Evans said and what Gerry Phillips said. I will explain to you why Mr Phillips's numbers are wrong.

On municipal transit and GO Transit services, Mr Phillips claims the province has underestimated the impact on municipalities by $70 million. This claim is totally incorrect. Crombie used 1997-98 data. He did not reflect the province's intention to honour the five-year existing TTC capital plan. That number is wrong.

On the cost of ambulance services, Mr Phillips claims that the province underestimated the impact on municipalities by $50 million. This claim also is incorrect. The $200-million figure released by the government is the full cost of land ambulance service, which is only part of the ambulance --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I apologize.

Mr McGuinty: Yesterday the Minister of Finance told us the Toronto Star got it wrong. Today he tells us the Globe and Mail got it wrong. Perhaps the Sun should check with the minister to review tomorrow's

article before going to print.

Minister, listen, you can call municipal mayors whiners, you can call us wrong, you can say the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is wrong, you can tell us the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is wrong, you can tell us ROMA is wrong, but it's not going to change the fact about the truth. Apparently we're all wrong except the minister and the Premier himself. The truth is that the numbers add up to one thing: a $1-billion property tax hike to be distributed across this province to Ontario property taxpayers. It's as simple as that.

Minister, your assistant Deputy Minister of Finance tells us the truth about dumping. We got that today. Why don't you tell us the truth right now?

Hon Mr Eves: I'd like to see the quote from the honourable member opposite where the assistant deputy minister is quoted as saying this will cost municipalities $900 million. He can't give me that quote because it doesn't exist; it's a figment of his imagination.

I just came from a meeting with my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Community and Social Services. We had a very amicable, frank, forthright discussion with AMO, and I can tell you that we came out of that meeting with a very positive sense to set a process in place to discuss with municipalities how we can meet their special needs and accommodate them. We also had a very positive meeting with respect to the fact that we share one thing in common: We both acknowledge that there is only one taxpayer; we acknowledge that property taxes will not go up.

I say to the leader of the official opposition, if municipalities find 2% cost-efficiencies in the services they deliver --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Finance, thank you very much.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I don't want to argue with you. Chief government whip, I'm not into a debate with you. Everyone has the same amount of time to put their question and answer their question. It may indicate that you may agree more with some of the answers and the questions, but nobody gets any more time. New question.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The question is to the Premier. The Minister of Finance talks about the importance of quotes, and I have one here that I think will be of considerable interest to all members.

I have a copy of the Fergus News Express. It tells the story of a meeting that took place on Monday, September 19, by Mike Harris, the then leader of the third party. The title is, "Harris Presents Common Sense Revolution Mandate to Area Politicians."

"Harris was asked if he's in favour of amalgamation, and he responded, `There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities."

Premier, how can you possibly reconcile this statement with your plans to impose bigger government on so many Ontario communities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I was in Fergus. We're imposing no large government on the people of Fergus and they're doing very well.

Mr McGuinty: You know, this passage is so delicious and so unequivocal that it's worthy of repetition. This was a meeting, by the way, that was attended by a group of 40 municipal politicians and clerks, and Mr Harris then said, on Monday, September 19, the following: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities."

I couldn't agree more. Premier, once more, how can you possibly reconcile this statement with what you are doing right now, especially right here in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me reassure, as I did on September 19, 1994, the people of Fergus that we are not imposing a large government on the people of Fergus, and Fergus will maintain its name.

Let me also say, since you want to translate that into Toronto, that the proposal that we have brought forward is not to add one single person to Metropolitan Toronto, simply to eliminate seven layers of government into one layer of government.

Mr McGuinty: This is painful to watch. It's important to understand what the reason is behind this mega-dumping and the megacity. The reason we're moving forward on this, the reason the Premier is moving forward on this is because it's the only way municipalities across this province are going to be able to possibly find some way to contend with the new costs created by mega-dumping.

Premier, once more: You said, "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity." You said, "Why destroy our roots and pride?" You said, "I disagree with restructuring, because it believes that bigger is better." Finally, you said, unequivocally and very, very clearly, "Services always cost more in larger communities," and you said that with complete conviction. So why is it that you are bent on proceeding with amalgamation in so many communities across the province, but especially here in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Harris: One of the things that was very evident to the people of Fergus was that services cost more in Metro Toronto than they did in Fergus. And one of the reasons they cost more in Metro Toronto than they did in Fergus was because there were seven layers of government, too many politicians, too many conflicts, too much in-fighting and too many other things going on.

The second thing that the people of Fergus were concerned about, and I am concerned about, was that in any restructuring nobody should lose their identity.

When previous amalgamations were brought forward in Toronto, they tried to take away the identities of some of the communities of Toronto. So while you took the heart out of Toronto with your taxes and you took the heart out of Toronto with the job loss, we not only are putting the heart back in, we're not only putting the tax base back in, we're not only putting the jobs back in, but we also want to bring back the communities: Willowdale, Don Mills, Mimico, Leaside, Swansea, Forest Hill, Weston, the Beaches. We want to put the communities back into Toronto, and our proposal will do that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also to the Premier. Despite the story in the Globe and Mail today which delineates how your government is trying to underestimate the downloading, you still insist it's a wash by the year 2000 and your Minister of Municipal Affairs says it's a wash today. Despite the fact that municipalities across this province are adding up their numbers and know they are going to get hit with massive downloading, you still say, "Oh, there's no problem."

I want to ask you something else that's occurred. Just last month, in January, the general welfare caseload increased: in Durham region by 2.3%; Niagara region by 3%; Toronto by 1.8%; York region by 3.8%; and Hamilton-Wentworth by over 10%. Premier, you say that the costs of social assistance are going to go down but these figures indicate they're going up. Can you explain the discrepancies between your story and the story in the Globe and Mail and the story that the welfare statistics --

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

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister can explain what's happening with welfare in the province and will be proud to do so.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm sure the honourable member will be aware that welfare costs in this province have come down since we've taken over the government. We've saved about $1.3 billion in savings on welfare, the municipalities have saved something like $140 million to $150 million in terms of the savings, and we will continue to see savings in the social assistance system as we get workfare up and running.

I would like to remind the honourable member that welfare is a cyclical program. We've always seen that, but we have also demonstrated as a government that it is possible to manage that program in a way that is sustainable, in a way that manages costs and in a way that makes sure those dollars are there for those people on welfare who need it.

Mr Hampton: What I heard from the Minister of Community and Social Services is that she has cut social assistance. We know that, and we know that she is forcing people out on the street. The point is, Minister, that despite all your cuts, despite taking the hatchet to the poorest people in the province, the caseloads continue to rise. Despite all your cuts, the number of people forced on to social assistance -- and the January figures are there -- continue to rise.

Minister, usually your ministry comes out and trumpets the province-wide caseload numbers right away. For some reason, this month you're holding off. You still haven't released January's numbers. We're left to wonder why. I think we know why.

What is really damaging is that your David Crombie was at ROMA yesterday. It was David Crombie at his best, saying ever so tactfully that Mike Harris should have listened to the Who Does What panel and left social assistance at the province-wide level. Why didn't you listen to David Crombie? Why did the government --

The Speaker: Leader, thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I'd like to remind the honourable member that we are not booting people off social assistance. The National Council on Welfare's recent report that came out this week confirmed that our welfare rates are 12% above the average of the other provinces, so we still have a very generous system. We also are ensuring, through tighter eligibility, that only those people who need assistance will get that assistance.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Ontario has the highest in the country. The number of people in this province --

Hon Mrs Ecker: We are also rolling out our workfare across the province to make sure that those people on social assistance can get off and get back into the job force, where most of them want to be and where we want them to be. I would like to remind the honourable member --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Hamilton East, come to order. I'm warning you. The member for Oriole, come to order. I'm warning you as well. I realize that this issue is hot, but I want some order so I can hear the minister's answer. Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Again, as the honourable member knows, there are cycles in the welfare rates. It is very common for rates to go up in the winter months; that is not unusual. I would like to point him to his own government's record in terms of the outrageous increase of the people trapped on welfare.

Mr Hampton: There was one thing that was correct in the minister's answer: that social assistance rates and social assistance caseloads do go up and down, and social assistance caseloads really go up when you get into a recession. What you're doing, as David Crombie said, is you are dumping the costs of social assistance on to municipalities. David Crombie knows, and municipalities know, that those caseload numbers are going to go up in a recession and municipalities won't be able to handle it.

Let me ask you again: David Crombie spent all this time out there working with his panel and he came back with a recommendation. He said: Don't dump social assistance on to municipalities. Municipalities, with only the property tax, will not be able to cover the cost of social assistance.

Why are you dumping this huge cost on to municipalities, a cost which we all know is going to go up? Why are you punishing municipalities like this?

Hon Mrs Ecker: During the life of this previous government, the honourable member was a member of that government when welfare rates and the number of people trapped on welfare and the costs of welfare --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You are the government now.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane North, I'm warning you to come to order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: When welfare rates and the number of people trapped on welfare and the cost of welfare for municipalities were soaring through the stratosphere, I didn't hear the honourable member out there trying to help the municipalities with that cost. What we have done in the Who Does What initiatives is acknowledge that there are cycles in the welfare system, that the need for financial support for municipalities may well occur. That is why we have invested $700 million up front for a social assistance reserve that will grow to $1.9 billion. It is there as a rainy day fund. It is there to support those municipalities if they need it.

I would also like to ask the honourable member -- he's so fond of quoting Mr David Crombie -- Mr Crombie also recommended that perhaps we should be contracting out welfare. Do you support that, sir?

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Minister of Community and Social Services, no, we don't support the contracting out, and we don't support the dumping of billions of dollars of costs on to municipalities either.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the Premier. On November 7, 1996, the Attorney General inappropriately commented on a police investigation, an investigation which involved two members of the Legislature and that his ministry in fact initiated. To quote the Attorney General in Hansard, he said: "I said there was a break-in. I said it was because there was a break-in." And then later: "In fact, we all know who was involved because they admitted they were there. Ask Kormos what he did to the security guard."

We have an independent legal opinion from a very distinguished professor of law, Alan Young at Osgoode Hall Law School, who says very clearly, "The actions and statements compromise the independence of the office of the Attorney General. His actions and statements compromise the independence of the police."

Premier, do you think it's appropriate for the Attorney General to be reaching conclusions and voicing his opinion on a matter which is the subject of a police investigation?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I understand there are legal opinions, and they can be placed before the judge as this matter is before the judge and the judge will make the appropriate ruling.

Mr Hampton: Judges will attempt to look after the legal system as best they can, but unfortunately they can't deal with an Attorney General who interferes in the functioning of the justice system. Someone called the Premier has to do that. Someone called the Premier has to be accountable when the Attorney General improperly interferes.

I put it to you, as Professor Young states: "The actions and statements of the Attorney General on November 7, 1996, were violative of the historical and constitutional traditions of the Attorney General." That's what he says.

Now, Premier, you appoint members of cabinet and it's your responsibility as Premier to ensure that they act in a manner which is consistent with their responsibilities. What actions are you going to take to ensure that the Attorney General is held accountable for the inappropriate and irresponsible remarks he made in the Legislature on November 7, 1996?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you're well aware that the minister has explained his comments. There is a lawyer whose opinion you're quoting representing a client who proposes to take that before a judge, and the judge will rule.

Mr Hampton: Once again, I think it's evident that the Premier attempts to avoid the gravity of the situation. One of the hallmarks of our justice system is that it remains free from political interference. It is especially a hallmark of our justice system that an Attorney General must not make any comments which might prejudge a police investigation or which might prejudge a trial.

You are the only person who can hold the Attorney General responsible. You are the person who appointed that Attorney General. You are the only person who can make sure that all of this works as it ought to, so I'm going to ask you again. It's incumbent upon you to restore the credibility and integrity of the Attorney General's office. It's incumbent upon you to uphold the integrity of our justice system. I call upon you to ask for the resignation of the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harris: I call on you to listen to your question. Just go through carefully what you've said. You think it's inappropriate for an Attorney General to prejudge a case, comment on a case, comment on anything before the courts. I think it's inappropriate for a Premier to do the same.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question today is again for the Minister of Health. I want to come back to the issue of the Harris hospital cuts which we raised on Monday. These huge cuts --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Thank you. Member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, the Harris hospital cuts are huge and are harming hospitals. For example, North York General Hospital is now telling us that they're going to be cutting 35 beds, 13 paediatric beds. They're going to be cutting cleaning services; the seniors' health centre is going to be getting less cleaning. There's less food going to be provided to all the patients because of the Harris hospital cuts. But that's the injury. The insult was your ministry making these cuts 5% larger. The public figures are in contradiction.

Your assistant deputy minister apparently has left the ministry as of yesterday, a day after this has been raised, and it's left to you to explain, to confirm that there are two lists for hospital cuts and to confirm why your ministry is using one of these lists to skim money away from hospitals and making their very difficult job even harder.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): There is no skimming from hospitals. There was a operating funding program set out over a year ago by the Minister of Health. It outlined a three-year operating fund for the hospitals. That program is in conjunction with the JPPC, the joint planning policy committee, composed of hospital administrators, composed of members from the Ontario Hospital Association, composed of members from the Ministry of Health.

They have sat down this year and made recommendations to the Ministry of Health in terms of how to translate the funding for the fiscal year 1997-98. The Ministry of Health has conveyed that information to the hospitals. The funding is precisely in line with the JPPC formula and precisely in line with the funding that we committed to one year ago.

Mr Kennedy: It is a shame that you will not admit. This is the public list that your former assistant deputy minister released from institutional health, saying what the hospitals would get. We have spoken now to 43 hospitals and every single one of these hospitals has been cut by an extra 5% and the money has been skimmed off. We believe that that money is being used for your so-called reinvestments. This is an issue about whether you can be trusted with the health and wellbeing of Ontarians. You're saying one thing, you have one set of figures publicly and you've got another set of figures that you're sending around privately to hospitals.

Every penny makes a difference to these hospitals, whether those rooms are clean, whether people get nurses to visit them. You said to a reporter on Monday that if there was a nickel more than $435 million being cut that it would be sent back to hospitals. We have talked to 43 hospitals -- we're going to talk to them all -- and our estimates are there is going to be not one nickel but 460 million nickels cut from hospitals -- $23 million. Minister, will you confirm to this House today that every penny above the amount that you were originally cutting will go back --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I would be delighted to confirm to this House today that every nickel, if there is -- indeed, I'm convinced and I'm committed that there is not anything more than the $435 million, but if it can be determined that anything beyond one penny beyond the $435 million has been reduced from the hospitals, then I will guarantee you that we will give that money back to the hospitals.

We have lived within the precise formula put down by the JPPC with the total amount of money. The funding that was committed one year ago was a 6% reduction; the average is precisely a 6% reduction. I will say that there will not be a penny more that 8% to any particular hospital and there will not be a penny more than $435 million in total reductions to the hospitals. I will guarantee that.

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Premier. Now that the courts have ruled that your government acted illegally in firing three vice-chairs of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, it's time to return to the issue of the contempt charges pending against the Chair of Management Board.

This case has been blocked for months, for three reasons: first, as a result of the illegal action by the Premier's office in the firing of three vice-chairs; second, because the government at first denied any involvement, but later conceded when the case came to court that the Premier's office was in fact involved in this political purge; third, because the Minister of Labour has refused to allow appointment of an independent adjudicator from outside Ontario to hear this case.

Now the court decision is in. Premier, will you commit today that the contempt charges against the Chair of Management Board will be heard promptly by an independent outside adjudicator?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question, and I know the member would want to make sure it got on the record that on page 7 of the ruling he's talking about, the court completely rejected the argument that any action taken by this government challenged the independence of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, that it would be brought into question through that action. That was page 7 of the ruling. I know you would want to make sure to draw people's attention to page 7 of that ruling because I think that was the most significant part of it.

With regard to the other, the Minister of Labour is not here today and that's a separate issue and a separate question. When the Minister of Labour returns, I'd be pleased to speak with her about the status of that matter.

Mr Christopherson: Premier, what I want to bring to your attention and that of the public is the fact that it was your office that has caused the litigation, confusion and gridlock at the labour board. It's the role of your office in deciding which members of the Ontario Labour Relations Board would be fired that's at the heart of this matter.

At first, your government even tried to deny that this happened, but when that coverup failed, you were forced to concede the point in court. Premier, what have you done to investigate this illegal action, what steps have you taken to determine who in your office was responsible for this breach of the law, and what will you do to make sure it never happens again?

Hon Mr Harris: You will know there has been a downsizing that we approved in cabinet, and we will continue to approve downsizing wherever there is a surplus of people who are there. Page 7 of the ruling authorizes our right to do that and suggests that the way we did it did nothing to bring the independence of the Ontario Labour Relations Board into question. Given the support of the ruling on page 7, we intend to carry on getting the best deal we can for the taxpayers of Ontario.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Mr Speaker, I wish to respond to a question that was asked yesterday by the member for Sudbury East. I might add that in doing so, I can provide an answer to the question of the member for Welland-Thorold at the same time.

Yesterday the member for Sudbury East and the member for Welland-Thorold raised three examples of family support program cases in the House. While you will know that I cannot provide details of the cases, I am pleased to report today that I raised these with the ministry and, due to the tremendous job the minister has done in getting that ministry up and running, all three cases have been resolved.

I also would like to say to the member for Sudbury East --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Give them the 1-800 number.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order. I'm warning you.

Hon Mr Harris: The office would like to not only thank and congratulate the minister for giving them the tools, but the office also wished to thank the member for Sudbury East for her help and cooperation --

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Do you know how many we have in Windsor waiting for a call from the Premier's office?

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): You will get every single one of them tomorrow.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich. The member for Kenora.

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of personal privilege, Speaker.

The Speaker: There is no personal privilege, but there is privilege. Wait until -- okay, fine.

Hon Mr Harris: The staff also reported to me that they wish to thank the member for Sudbury East's office for its cooperation and just to let everybody know we appreciate bringing forward any examples. We are pleased to report that these three have all been dealt with.

The Speaker: Supplementary, member for Sudbury East.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I don't know where the Premier is getting his information from. Let me tell him about the cases, because we've been following up on them this morning.

Diane Burke's case: That is the second time I have had to raise that case in this Legislature. I raised her case in November. I was told then that it would be fixed. I was told by the Attorney General's staff yesterday that it was the employer's fault because the employer wasn't putting the correct information on the cheque. I'd ask you, Mr Premier, if you can find out why in November someone didn't call the employer and tell them what kind of information they would have to put on so that her cheques weren't delayed for another two months.

Suzanne Beauvais's case is not solved. We just finished talking to the Attorney General's staff before I got in this House. They were telling me that no payment has been made to the FSP by the payor, but Ms Beauvais is telling us that she has talked to the payor, her ex-husband, and he is submitting payments, so that claim is not fixed either.

Maybe you can deal with the 14 other cases that came into my constituency office last night, Premier. It is an insult for you to come in here today and say these have been fixed when they have not. We have a serious ongoing problem --

The Speaker: The member for Sudbury East, come to order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I want to thank the member for bringing any of these cases to our attention, and just to congratulate the very hardworking, dedicated OPSEU --

Mr Miclash: You will have every one of them in question period tomorrow. Within 20 minutes you will have all of mine.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Members for Kenora and Windsor-Sandwich, if you don't come to order, I'll name you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I'd like to congratulate the very dedicated OPSEU members who work in the program for their expediency in being able to resolve these. I'd also like to quote, if I might, from Lynn Vinette, who is the director of the family support plan, who indicates to me: "Under previous governments problems could never have been resolved so quickly. As you know, we have greatly improved the service the family support plan provides. In addition, the enforcement measures the government has brought in, including driver's licence suspension and credit bureau reporting, are among the toughest in North America."

I'd like to say that this system is not perfect. We're not dealing in a perfect world when we try to enforce orders. We have a variety of difficulties in collecting this money. But let me just thank all members of the House and really congratulate the minister and the ministry --

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Could you confirm today in the House what your ministry's estimates are of the cost of downloading social housing, operating cost and capital, in total, and will you provide this House with a list, municipality by municipality, of those costs?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As the member from Windsor is aware, I'm sure, the federal government has announced it wants to get out of the social housing business, as we have indicated we want to get out of the social housing business, and provide it at the level of government that best provides it.

We're currently in discussions with the federal government on how that responsibility and the costs for that responsibility, including the cost of capital repairs for that program, are going to be dissolved down to the province and then ultimately down to the municipalities.

We know there is a lot of work that needs to be carried out in social housing, after being left in a state of disrepair for the last decade. We know that. We know that there is a tremendous need to get capital money into that program and we're working on that right now.

Mr Duncan: The offer the federal government has made to each province in this country is that it will transfer the dollars down to the provinces as well as the responsibility.

Senior officials at your ministry have provided me with estimates that range as high as $1.4 billion in total for social housing. Let me give you a breakdown: municipal non-profit, $308 million; cooperative non-profit housing, $247 million; private non-profit housing, $461 million; total non-profit, $1.017 billion; OHC rural and native programs, $352 million; rent supplements over and above privately owned buildings, $80,953,000; for a grand total of $1.4 billion, not including capital, not including the estimates associated with reinvesting to make our dilapidated public housing stock better quality.

Minister, will you now acknowledge that this will cost property taxpayers hundreds of dollars each right across this province and come clean with your numbers --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Windsor-Walkerville, come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: To the member for Windsor, I recognize that they let social housing stock fall into disrepair, but I was a bit surprised that the member is that high. I just think it's a shame that over the last decade those two governments allowed social housing to fall into a state of disrepair that it's going to cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to put in.

This government intends to address that problem. We're addressing it in our negotiations with the federal government and we're addressing it in our negotiations with the municipal government. I'd like to assure the taxpayers of Ontario that we're going to carry out the repairs to social housing in the most cost-effective, economical way possible. We'll try and fix the mess you guys left over the last decade.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. About 20 minutes ago I received some very disturbing information. I've been told that your ministry has announced the health and safety minor capital funding for Metropolitan Toronto child care centres and that the allocation decisions have already been made. Two things about this are very disturbing.

For the first time in the history of child care, those allocation decisions have been made without any normal process of consultation with the community. More shockingly, for the first time we are told that you are going to hand out taxpayers' dollars, public money, to the private for-profit, commercial sector. Minister, in these days of massive cutbacks, how can you defend giving away taxpayers' dollars to private for-profit businesses?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am not aware of what the member is referring to because this government is not in the habit of giving away taxpayers' dollars to anyone. We are in the habit of investing that money where it should be invested: in services for those who are in need. We have not made any capital decisions that I am aware of.

The other thing I would like to say to the honourable member is in terms of child care, that what is important is the quality of the child care being provided. Whether the sector or the operator is a non-profit operator or a private sector operator, the questions are: Are they meeting the qualifications under the legislation? Are they meeting the test of quality for parents that parents put on child care or the community? Those are the things I think we should be most interested in: Are they meeting the test of quality at an affordable price for those parents who need that day care?

Ms Lankin: Your officials have informed members of the child care community in Metropolitan Toronto today that the allocation is $1.4 million, that the allocation decisions to specific centres have been made and that for the first time in history for-profit commercial centres are going to receive those health and safety minor capital dollars.

I remind you of the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism's statement that your government is not into giving handouts to private business, that they can stand on their own two feet. I also remind you that in the child care field it is very clear that there is no accountability in the private sector for where those dollars go. In the not-for-profit sector they have to account for every dollar being invested in the business. In the commercial sector, that money can go straight into the business owner's bank account.

Minister, this is absolutely wrongheaded. You have got proposals out there for reforming the child care system. You have not completed your consultations. We've got no announcements on the specifics of that. Here is one of your proposed reforms that you're moving ahead on. You must stop that. Please direct your officials to hold up that announcement and to reverse that decision.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would be very concerned if the honourable member is saying that those people in child care who may be in the private sector are not meeting the regulations and the tough quality standards that we have, because if she is, that's a serious allegation and I would encourage her to bring forward that information so that our ministry can take the steps that are necessary to protect the safety of those children.

I'm more interested in meeting the test of parents. Do those child care centres meet the needs that the parents and the children have? I'm more interested in whether those child care centres are meeting the test of quality and those tough standards. The member may wish to take an ideological approach to this and say that one kind of operator is more acceptable than another kind of operator. I'm interested in better quality child care.

FUEL SPILL

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. There's a good deal of concern in my region of the province, particularly from those in the agricultural community. Earlier this week we learned of the significant leak of unleaded gasoline from a pipeline in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Could the minister update the House on this important issue and advise us of what actions he and his ministry are taking to ensure the successful containment and cleanup of this spill?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): There indeed was a large spill, the largest spill since at least 1988 in the environment, that happened early this week when 250,000 litres of unleaded gasoline were spilled into the environment. This came from a pipeline in the township of Osgoode which happens to be located, unfortunately, in my own riding of Carleton. The pipeline now has been shut off and the gasoline has been removed from a contained area. It took some 25 tankloads of gasoline to remove this.

Officials from my ministry have been on the scene since it happened, along with the Osgoode township fire department, and they have acted in the best interests of the people there. This morning I toured the site with the people in the area, the residents of the nearby farms, to assure them that the initial testing done by the Ministry of Environment ensured there was no contamination to their drinking water.

Under

section 8 of the Environmental Protection Act, the northern --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister. You can get the rest on the supplementary.

Mr Baird: The public places a significant priority on environmental protection. Could the minister give the people of Osgoode and Ottawa-Carleton assurances that a full investigation will take place so that we can work to ensure that adequate measures can be taken to ensure we can prevent this type of accident from happening in the future?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I was saying, the initial and most of the obligation falls on the owner of the pipeline, Trans-Northern, and they are at the site accepting their full responsibility for the cleanup at this time and have assured me that they will compensate the farmers in the area.

As I was mentioning before, the federal government is involved, as they are responsible for the operation of pipelines like this. They have an investigation ongoing at the site at the present time and are keeping officials in my ministry fully notified of this. I am, however, concerned about the fact that under our present standards there seems to be only a requirement for shutoff valves to be very, very widely located, in this case 20 miles apart from each other, and therefore it was very hard to contain the spill to a reasonable level. I will be contacting the National Energy Board at the federal level to have them look at these standards to see if in fact they are reasonable.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: I believe we can constrain this kind of accident in the future. We're going to get to the bottom of this. We have been assured by the perpetrators that --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question.

MACASSA LODGE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Health. If you'll recall, last week I rose in the House to ask you about the $8.5 million that your government has cut out of Macassa Lodge for much-needed renovations to this senior facility in the region. You stated you would review the situation and get back to us. The following day a letter was received by the region stating the following: "Given the current fiscal environment, the minister has reviewed your project in the context of the government's current priorities, and funding for this project cannot be considered at this time."

As I said last week, this is a home for senior citizens, average 85 years, very frail. They're now organizing petitions. They are now concerned about the future viability of the place they call home and the condition it is in, and your government has chosen to cut them off at the knees and withdraw the $8.5 million in health and safety repairs. This is not luxury; this is not adding rooms.

Now that you've had a week, Minister, will you reinstate the funding that you cut from Macassa Lodge?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): This is an issue that has been raised by the members opposite, and I will say that the member for Hamilton Mountain has talked to me about this very matter on a couple of occasions and brought this to my attention.

The problem faced by the government is that when we took office there were some $3 billion worth of health-related capital projects -- many of these projects had been announced by the previous government, but I will say that some of the projects dated back to before 1990, so some of the projects came out of the former Liberal government -- yet on an annualized basis, no more than $200 million or so is allocated to these projects. So there was a huge backlog and not sufficient funding.

We prioritize the projects, we look to see if they have implications for the restructuring commission, whether they address gaps in service or whether they have gone to tender. If they meet those criteria, then we go ahead; if they don't, they'll be re-evaluated as circumstances --

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

Mr Agostino: I'm absolutely astonished by the callousness and the coldness in the minister's answer. You don't get it, Minister. We're talking about a residence; senior citizens, 85 years of age on average. We're not talking about luxury renovations here. We're talking about senior citizens who can't take a shower because it changes from cold to hot. We're talking about senior citizens who don't have air-conditioning facilities and their lives are threatened in warm weather. We're talking about safety railings. We're talking about bathroom facilities that have to be shared by six people. We're talking about tubs that are rusting away.

Minister, this is a basic health and safety priority you don't seem to understand. It was approved in 1995; it wasn't approved back in the 1980s. Your own member said it best. He said, "It is unconscionable." That was the member for Hamilton Mountain. You should listen to him.

Again, in view of the conditions, will you commit today to reinstate the funding to Macassa Lodge and not put these senior citizens through hell trying to fight you through petitions and letters to the House?

Hon David Johnson: I really don't need a lecture from the member opposite on senior citizens. I represented a municipality, East York, for many years --

Mr Agostino: Can you help Macassa Lodge by not screwing them?

The Speaker: You'll have to withdraw that. You're out of order.

Mr Agostino: I withdraw.

Hon David Johnson: I represented a municipality for many years, East York, where 17% of the population are senior citizens. I raised funds for the local homes for the aged. I'm an honorary member of Meals on Wheels in East York. I understand seniors and the needs of seniors. I also understand --

Mr Agostino: Why did you cut this money out of Macassa?

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I'm going to name you if you do it again.

Hon David Johnson: I also understand that if the member opposite wanted to be helpful, perhaps he would talk to his colleagues in Ottawa -- Mr Martin and Mr Chrétien -- and say, "Why have you reduced $2 billion from health care funding in Ontario?" That's what we're having to deal with. And he might ask his own party and the New Democratic Party why they stockpiled $3 billion in projects and did not fund them when they were in government.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week the city of Toronto put out some estimates of the impact on small businesses of your mega-download and your market value assessment scheme. They estimate, for example, that a local barber will pay $5,996 more because of your downloading and market value assessment. They add to that that a variety store, for example, will pay $18,000 more. An electronics store will get an increase of $8,200; a dry cleaner will get a tax hike of $20,000. There's a long list.

I want to ask you this. Small business actually believes that you are their friend. They don't know that they are about to be whacked by a tax increase. What have you to say to console them?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The first thing that I would like to clarify for the member of the third party is that we're not introducing market value assessment in Ontario. We're introducing the Ontario fair tax system, which will be a fair tax for everybody in this province and eliminate the terrible system we have now that is totally unfair and totally inequitable.

With respect to small businesses, if there is any sector that is going to benefit from the new fair and equitable tax system that we're bringing in in the province, it's going to be the small retailer, particularly the small retailer in Toronto. We specifically set up a method that will ensure that small businesses, which were going to be destroyed under the system that you were considering, will be protected in a fair and equitable way.

Mr Marchese: This tax is not about fairness. People are about to be whacked by a property tax increase. In fact, they're going to be whacked by this fair tax bill, whether it's actual value assessment or market value -- and I don't see too much difference between the two -- they're going to be whacked. I've got a long list provided by the city of Toronto that shows clearly incredible tax increases for small businesses in Toronto. You're going to see empty storefronts as part of the megacity's future if these changes go ahead. Mike Harris has become a Taxhiker not a Taxfighter.

Explain yourselves to the small business people in Toronto again, Mr Minister. I want to hear you again explain that.

Hon Mr Leach: To the member of the third party, nothing could be further from the truth than the comments that were just made. We are setting up a system of property assessment that is going to be of major benefit to small businesses right across Ontario, and particularly to small businesses in Metropolitan Toronto, particularly the small businesses on Yonge Street and on Bayview and on St Clair.

All of those small businesses that were going to be hammered as a result of that ill-fated market value system that was under consideration by your government will be addressed by putting in an equitable Ontario fair tax system right across the province, finally fixing that broken-down property tax assessment that those two parties refused to deal with when they were in power.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I raise a point of privilege that I hope the Speaker can address for me, how I, as a member in this House, can somehow find the same level of privileges that other members have been accorded in this House, specifically relating to the family support cases from Windsor-Sandwich that have been delivered to the Attorney General, that have been reported here in the House, but I have not had action on my issues from my riding.

Today the Premier stands and addresses personally his own intervention on cases for other members. Speaker, I need to know how I get myself elevated to a level of privilege --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I think it would be fairly safe to warn everybody now, actually. I don't think that's a point of privilege. Maybe it --

Mrs Pupatello: Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

The Speaker: Let me deal with the point of privilege first. It's not a point of privilege. I understand the concern you have and all I can tell you is it's probably a question for the House, but as a privilege point of view, it is not within the Speaker's domain. If you have a point of order, I'll hear that.

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I need to understand how I, as member for Windsor-Sandwich, can elevate my issues from my riding in an order that would warrant the Premier's intervention on my case --

The Speaker: Again, I can only suggest to you I haven't got any control over the Premier's agenda or what he chooses to investigate or not to investigate and you'll have to take that up with the Premier.

Interjections.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Order. We can't hear you.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Nepean. Thank you.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Not on the point that's raised by the member for Windsor-Sandwich, but I do ask you to consider the dilemma which is posed for the conduct of the business of members of this assembly. Clearly we have at least two areas in which we operate. One is our constituency offices, where we do the work assigned to us in representing our constituents. The other is in the work we do right here in this assembly.

It was made clear today through the Premier's response to the question from the member for Sudbury East that he feels if he can personally be made aware of the questions of the specific cases that we in our constituency offices are dealing with, he will give them personal attention and they will get immediately resolved.

Mr Speaker, I have to tell you that's what my constituents have heard this afternoon as a result of our public deliberations in this forum. The message that goes back to them -- my staff, as with the staff, I venture to say, of every member of this assembly, are spending hours of time dealing with the family support cases and the frustration of constituents who can't get their payments. What all those constituents heard today was that the way to get the case solved is to bring it into the House.

I'm asking you, Mr Speaker, as a point of privilege and it follows the member for Windsor-Sandwich, you know that in one hour's question period we cannot raise in a question every individual case that is backlogged in our constituency office. I ask you to determine how we can reconcile the message given by the Premier this afternoon to our constituents, and you've just given in your answer --

The Speaker: I say to the member for Fort William, it is not up to me to reconcile the questions nor the answers. You can't ask me to begin to deal with the questions and reconcile the concerns you have with respect to privilege.

Mrs Pupatello: All that paper that's coming tomorrow.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich, you can interpret the Premier's answers any way you want to interpret. I'm not going to tell you how and I'm not going to interpret your questions that you put to them. All I can say to you is, I don't want to get into this, I don't want to get into this game, because I would be immersed and I'd never get out, and it wouldn't be appropriate.

I appreciate your concerns. I can say you can only judge yourself accordingly. I can't be of assistance.

Mrs McLeod: With respect, Mr Speaker, you in your ruling, on bringing forward these cases as a question, I submit to you that your ruling is not something we can carry out in the limitations of this House and I want my constituents to know it's virtually impossible. That's the only way to deal with the government. They have put a --

The Speaker: Well, you know something? I bet your constituents know that now.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On the same point of privilege --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Same point of privilege. That's very true. I've dealt with the point of privilege, so it's really not the same point. Now, if you have a --

Mrs Caplan: Information that you might want to consider.

The Speaker: The trouble is that I've ruled. Now, if you have a different point of privilege --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Okay, on a new point of privilege, the member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: The point I want to make, Mr Speaker, is that there are many citizens, women with children who are suffering because of the incompetence of this government in dealing with the family support plan, who do not want their names public in this House. The issue of confidentiality is one which is extremely important to them and it is embarrassing.

For the Premier to stand up and say the only way to have those cases resolved is by bringing them into this House and publicly exposing them to that, I think is a point for you to intervene on the appropriateness of that kind of direction from the Premier that says the only way we can get action on behalf of our constituents --

The Speaker: No. Although that may be interesting, I don't see it as a lot different than the point of privilege raised by the member for Fort William. I will say again, it is not up to me to determine the responses to the questions or the questions themselves. If that's how you interpreted the Premier's response, then you act accordingly. I can't adjudicate this for you. It would be impossible.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the point I would like to raise is that I am dissatisfied with the response I received from the Premier this afternoon and I would request that we debate this at the end of today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): If you've file the appropriate notice, that's fine.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I raise this quite seriously as a concern. I don't pretend to know how it can be addressed, but I think it needs to be noted for the record. I sit as a member of the committee that will be going into public hearings on Bill 104, the bill which is about to receive to second reading and which had a time allocation motion passed last Thursday.

I have in front of me some 300 applications from individuals who have asked to present at those hearings. They're part of the 951 names of individuals who want to present at the hearings. As the representative of our caucus on the subcommittee establishing who should present to the hearings, I've been asked to set at least these 300 names of people who have directly contacted my office in some kind of priority for presentation. I don't know how you deal with it, but I just have to raise it as a point of order for the impossibility of the way in which this assembly proceeds to deal with the public.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Same point of order? That's not a point of order. Okay, point of order, member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: With over 950 applicants for presentations before the committee just from Toronto, not even counting the rest of the province, and the amount of time set forward in the time allocation motion, it's completely impossible for us to give those who wish to present a real opportunity to have input into Bill 104. This presents all of us in the assembly with a very difficult problem.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Same point of order? Point of order, member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We know the impossible task the members of the subcommittee have, but I'm a member of the committee and I would like to have the opportunity to hear Diane --

The Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Oriole, please. This isn't even --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Oriole, I'm very patient on points of order. That is purely political. You must accept the fact that I will hear the points of order. I don't want to hear the names of the people --

Mrs Caplan: People want to be heard.

The Speaker: I'm not debating the point. The fact remains that I know you hear it a lot that it may be a question for question period, but frankly it's not a point of order for this place. The committee is seized with responsibility. Asking me to make any kind of order or rule to compel a committee to hear or not hear or set priority is impossible. I just don't want the responsibility at every single committee. If you have a difficulty with the committee, if you have a difficulty with the time allocation motion, it's a question for the House; it's not a question of order. It was properly put; it was properly passed.

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've affixed my signature.

EDUCATION REFORMS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today I want to present the first seven pages of pages and pages of petitions coming into my office from parents in the riding of Beaches-Woodbine. This is to the members of the Ontario Legislature:

"We, the undersigned, believe that the education of our children will suffer because the education reforms introduced by the Minister of Education and Training do not reflect:

"

(1) The democratic principles that are cherished by our society;

"

(2) A true perception of what our classrooms involve and a true assessment of their cost;

"

(3) A recognition of the special funding needs in Metro."

I am in complete agreement with these parents and I have affixed my signature to the petition.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci which promotes smaller class sizes passed second reading; and

"Whereas this bill, called Bill 110, was referred to the social development committee; and

"Whereas we, the stakeholders in education, want the government committee to hear what we have to say about smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas we want to hear what the government committee has to say regarding smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas all people in Ontario have a right to speak to the social development committee about smaller class sizes;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the recommendation that the social development committee travel across Ontario to find out what the students, parents, teachers and taxpayers of Ontario are saying about smaller class sizes and Bill 110, the smaller class sizes act."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition submitted by the Ontario Federation of Labour on behalf of all working people in the province, union and non-union.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I add my name to theirs in support.

TRANSITION HOUSE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "Whereas Transition House in Chatham has provided emergency shelter to troubled or abused youth as well as support, counselling and life skills training since 1990, and operating on a five-year budget of $865,000 they have counselled over 400 youth and served over 20,000 meals; and

"Whereas the city of Chatham and the county of Kent rely on Transition House to meet the needs of its troubled youth and there is no other facility to serve the needs of the community; and

"Whereas the principles of discipline, self-help and a regimented environment at Transition House have combined with counselling and support to provide youth with the motivation and self-respect to return to school or find jobs; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has cut its direct funding to Transition House by almost $48,000 annually and placed the existence of Transition House in jeopardy;

"Be it therefore resolved that we, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to reverse its decision to cut the funding of Transition House in Chatham."

I affix my name to this.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Canadian Auto Workers union. It reads:

"To save the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"To Premier Harris and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, oppose any attempts to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

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

I add my name to theirs.

SENIORS' ISSUES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the quality of care for residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged is being directly and adversely affected by the funding policies of the Mike Harris Conservative government;

"Whereas the funding deficiencies are forcing these institutions to reduce available staff assistance to residents to unacceptable levels;

"Whereas the user taxes placed on prescription drugs unfairly discriminate against residents of nursing homes;

"Whereas the residents of these institutions are the very people who built this great province and country;

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

"To provide adequate funding for long-term-care institutions and eliminate the user taxes on prescription drugs for seniors."

This is signed by quite a number of my constituents from the Gore Bay-Kagawong-Mindemoya area.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly that's signed by people from Windsor and London and all over southwestern Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas violence involving firearms is unacceptably common; and

"Whereas the requirement that firearms be registered as proposed by the federal government is reasonable,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately withdraw all opposition to the federal gun control legislation.

"Further, we demand that all money that would have been spent to oppose the federal gun control legislation instead be spent on the prevention of domestic violence and on services for victims of domestic violence."

I am pleased to affix my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here signed by five residents of East York. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of East York, are in favour of the borough of East York remaining as a separate municipality."

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition in response to Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the firefighters of Ontario and Sudbury are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation; and

"Whereas we are very concerned about Bill 84 and don't want to get burned by Bill 84,

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law and only after extensive public hearings across Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions from my community of Hamilton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the tragic deaths of two workers at Dofasco's bayfront steel mill in Hamilton raise serious questions about safety procedures; and

"Whereas the representatives of the workers, the United Steelworkers of America, were stonewalled and shut out of the early stages of the investigation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris Conservatives have abolished the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and laid off the agency's staff of safety training experts; and

"Whereas the Harris government has reduced the requirements for workplace health and safety training; and

"Whereas the Conservative government is considering changes to the role of the joint health and safety commission and to the right to refuse unsafe work which could lead to even more workplace accidents in the future; and

"Whereas deregulating workplace health and safety will lead to more deaths and injuries,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand a coroner's inquest into the fatal accident at Dofasco, along with a complete investigation including full participation by the representatives of the workers."

I add my name to theirs in support.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition in response to Bill 84 and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the firefighters of Kenora and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation;

"Whereas we are concerned about Bill 84,

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law and after extensive public hearings across Ontario."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is considering the privatization of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario,

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

"That the Liquor Control Board of Ontario remain a crown corporation because we fear that the privatization of that organization will lead to increases in crime, drunk driving, alcohol abuse and its health costs as well as a loss of control over availability to minors and quality of product."

I affix my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Conservative government of Mike Harris has closed three out of five hospitals in Thunder Bay and two out of three hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas drastic funding cuts to hospitals across Ontario are intimidating hospital boards, district health councils and local hospital restructuring commissions into considering the closing of local hospitals; and

"Whereas hospitals in the Niagara region have provided an outstanding essential service to patients and have been important facilities for medical staff to treat the residents of the Niagara Peninsula and will be required for people in Niagara for years to come; and

"Whereas the population of Niagara is on average older than that in most areas of the province;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Minister of Health to restore adequate funding to hospitals in the Niagara region and guarantee that his government will not close any hospitals in the Niagara Peninsula."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement with this petition.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a very important petition here addressed to the government of Ontario.

"Since video lottery terminals will contribute to gambling addiction in Ontario and the resulting breakup of families, spousal and child abuse and crimes such as embezzlement and robbery; and

"Since the introduction of video lottery terminals across Ontario will provide those addicted to gambling with widespread temptation and will attract young people to a vice which will adversely affect their lives for so many years to come; and

"Since the introduction of these gambling machines across our province is designed to gain revenue for the government at the expense of the poor, the vulnerable and the desperate in order that the government can cut income taxes, to the greatest benefit of those with the highest income; and

"Since the placement of video lottery terminals in bars in Ontario and in permanent casinos in various locations across the province represents an escalation of gambling opportunities; and

"Since Premier Harris and Finance Minister Eves were so critical of the provincial government becoming involved in further gambling ventures and making the government more dependent on gambling revenues to maintain government operations;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to reconsider its announced decision to introduce the most insidious form of gambling, video lottery terminals, to restaurants and bars in the province."

I've affixed my signature to it.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition comes from Local 6,500 of the United Steelworkers of America.

"To the Honourable Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario has decided to scrap mandatory inquests as a result of fatalities in the mining and construction industries; and

"Whereas this unprecedented and callous decision sets workplace safety back 20 years;

"We, the undersigned, request that Solicitor General Bob Runciman, on behalf of all workers in the mining and construction industries, reverse his decision to remove mandatory inquests from the Coroners Act of Ontario."

Of course I affix my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I beg leave to present the 32nd report of the standing committee on government agencies.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Miclash: This is the report where David Cooke, the former NDP member, was appointed to the Education Improvement Commission.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 104,

An Act to improve the accountability, effectiveness and quality of Ontario's school system by permitting a reduction in the number of school boards, establishing an Education Improvement Commission to oversee the transition to the new system, providing for certain matters related to elections in 1997 and making other improvements to the Education Act and the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 104, Loi de 1997 visant à accroître l'obligation de rendre compte, l'efficacité et la qualité du système scolaire ontarien en permettant la réduction du nombre des conseils scolaires, en créant la Commission d'amélioration de l'éducation, chargée d'encadrer la transition vers le nouveau système, en prévoyant certaines questions liées aux élections de 1997 et en apportant d'autres améliorations à la

Loi sur l'éducation et à la Loi de 1996 sur les élections municipales.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Pursuant to the order of the House, I must now put the question. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1525 to 1530.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Snobelen has moved second reading of Bill 104.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Grimmett, Bill

Palladini, Al

Baird, John R.

Guzzo, Garry J.

Parker, John L.

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Pettit, Trevor

Bassett, Isabel

Harnick, Charles

Preston, Peter

Beaubien, Marcel

Harris, Michael D.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Ross, Lillian

Brown, Jim

Hodgson, Chris

Runciman, Robert W.

Carroll, Jack

Hudak, Tim

Sampson, Rob

Chudleigh, Ted

Jackson, Cameron

Saunderson, William

Clement, Tony

Johnson, Bert

Shea, Derwyn

Cunningham, Dianne

Johnson, David

Sheehan, Frank

Danford, Harry

Johnson, Ron

Smith, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Jordan, W. Leo

Snobelen, John

Doyle, Ed

Kells, Morley

Sterling, Norman W.

Ecker, Janet

Leach, Al

Stewart, R. Gary

Elliott, Brenda

Marland, Margaret

Tilson, David

Eves, Ernie L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tsubouchi, David H.

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Flaherty, Jim

McLean, Allan K.

Villeneuve, Noble

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fox, Gary

Mushinski, Marilyn

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

Newman, Dan

Young, Terence H.

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

The Speaker: Those opposed?

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Cordiano, Joseph

Martin, Tony

Bisson, Gilles

Crozier, Bruce

McGuinty, Dalton

Boyd, Marion

Curling, Alvin

McLeod, Lyn

Bradley, James J.

Duncan, Dwight

Miclash, Frank

Brown, Michael A.

Gerretsen, John

Morin, Gilles E.

Caplan, Elinor

Hoy, Pat

Patten, Richard

Churley, Marilyn

Kennedy, Gerard

Pupatello, Sandra

Cleary, John C.

Kwinter, Monte

Ramsay, David

Colle, Mike

Lankin, Frances

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 68; the nays are 30.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated February 6, 1997, the bill is referred to the standing committee on social development.

STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

Mr Harnick moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 108,

An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration / Projet de loi 108, Loi traitant des poursuites concernant certaines infractions provinciales, réduisant le double emploi et simplifiant l'administration.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): It's my pleasure to introduce for second reading Bill 108, which amends the Provincial Offences Act to enable the transfer of all the remaining administrative and some prosecutorial functions for ticketable offences and fines to municipalities.

The proposed amendments, which are subject to the approval of this Legislature, build on the successful transfer of parking tickets to municipalities four years ago. Today 95% --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Will the minister take his seat just for a moment. Could I have order, please. I can't hear the Attorney General. If you want to meet, please go outside. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: Today 95% of parking tickets are handled by municipalities. This experience has shown that service can be provided to the public at a lower cost and that there are a number of benefits to be gained by involving municipalities more directly in the administration of justice.

We are now taking the next logical step. Bill 108 continues to move matters with local impact into the control and the accountability of the local authorities. It does so with the full appreciation of the need for consistent provincial standards for the administration of justice.

Bill 108 eliminates waste and duplication as administrative functions are brought together under one level of government. For example, administrative processes are duplicated when two offices process a single certificate of offence. With our changes, only the municipal office would process the certificate.

As well, Bill 108 provides for participating municipalities to retain the net revenues from fines collected under the Provincial Offences Act. We estimate that up to $65 million in revenue could accrue to Ontario municipalities. This new source of revenue could be spent on improving local services even after the costs of the new responsibilities are taken into account.

Fine revenues would continue to be subject to the victim fine surcharge. These moneys would be sent to the victims justice fund which was established by this government to assist victims of crime. Partner municipalities would retain the balance of fines after the victim fine surcharge and other program costs are remitted to the province.

The responsibilities to be transferred to municipalities under Bill 108 include administration of parts I, II and III of the Provincial Offences Act and prosecution of

part I or minor ticketable offences. Approximately 80% of these

part I offences are issued under the Highway Traffic Act. These infractions include speeding up to 49 kilometres over the speed limit, failing to stop at a red light or stop sign and failure to wear a seatbelt. Examples of other

part I offences include minor Liquor Licence Act infractions such as an open bottle of liquor and being intoxicated in a public place, as well as ticket scalping under the Ticket Speculation Act.

The province will continue to prosecute

part III offences, which are often more complex and can result in jail sentences. The province will also continue to be responsible for setting and monitoring standards for the administration of justice in order to ensure a uniform, fair and equal justice across Ontario. Provincially appointed judges and justices of the peace will continue to decide Provincial Offences Act cases. The province proposes to invite municipalities to submit proposals for partnership.

Municipalities interested in the invitation to participate in the transfer would be expected to meet specific selection criteria and once selected would sign a memorandum of understanding. This agreement would set out clearly the respective roles of the Attorney General and the participating municipalities.

We are aware that some municipalities may be too small to take over provincial offences on their own. We anticipate, in fact we know from preliminary discussions with municipalities, that municipalities may choose to get together and serve traditional court catchment areas or other reasonable concentrations of population. The ministry is encouraging this cooperation and the bill allows for that.

We anticipate there could be approximately 75 municipal partnerships from the Provincial Offences Act transfer. Subject to the approval of this Legislature, the transfer of responsibilities would start this year and be completed over the next two years.

In developing these amendments, we had the benefit of input from many legal and municipal experts. Productive consultations with internal and external stakeholders, the judiciary, the bar and the municipal sector took place and will continue. As well, on the recommendation of the Crombie subpanel, the ministry has worked closely with representatives of seven municipalities from different areas of the province to get their views on issues related to the proposed transfer.

This initiative was supported by David Crombie's Who Does What panel and has been welcomed by municipalities. They are eager to take on responsibility for local justice and anticipate the local benefit of an increase in revenue from the transfer. I can tell you that I have had very productive discussions, for instance, with the mayor of Windsor, the mayor of London, the mayor of Kingston, council members from Owen Sound and the warden of Grey county, and they're all very excited about this opportunity.

In 1979, Ontario was the first to decriminalize regulatory offences by introducing the more efficient ticketing system of the Provincial Offences Act. Other provinces such as Alberta, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and British Columbia have adopted similar legislation. In 1993, Bill 25 successfully streamlined the Provincial Offences Act process by transferring the responsibility to administer parking infractions to designated municipalities. Once again in 1997, Ontario will set an example by inviting municipalities to be partners in the justice system.

I ask the House to approve the bill in principle and look forward to participating in further debate.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me first of all say that this looks like one of those bills that everyone could be in favour of. It looks like one of those bills. We have to keep in mind that this is another one of those downloading exercises on to the local municipalities. I'm sure the people of this province are getting quite weary about the whole situation, especially since it has now been confirmed by a senior official within the Ministry of Finance that it's going to cost municipalities $1 billion more with respect to all of these downloading exercises than what was originally talked about.

This is exactly the kind of thing that independent studies of most municipalities have shown: that their taxes are going to go up if they want to continue to provide the same kind of services to the municipalities.

The other thing that's very interesting is that the government claims this initiative will generate something like $65 million to municipalities. It's interesting that in the Crombie report, he only estimated a $30-million generation of revenues to the municipalities of Ontario. There's quite a difference there. I think it's these kinds of differences that would lead one to be very suspicious about this kind of legislation.

There's nothing in the legislation at all that would allow a municipality to opt out after they've opted in, because in their particular situation, as the Attorney General has already stated, there may not be the same financial savings as there may be in other municipalities. There's nothing in this legislation at all that talks about making sure there is some sort of uniform standard with respect to how this act is going to be applied across the province.

We look forward to the discussions that we'll be having on this bill and to the public participation. We've got many questions about this bill, however.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It is good that we are discussing this act this afternoon, because of course the government is putting a great deal of emphasis on the possibility for the municipalities to gain part of their revenue from this bill, and it's amazing that in the flurry of activity around the downloading of provincial responsibilities to municipalities the Attorney General would try to indicate anything else.

The other thing that struck me in his speech was his claim that his government set up the victim assistance fund. He knows that's not the case, that the name of the fund was changed by the act passed by the current government but that in fact that fund was set up under the previous government and was part of the entire plan to ensure that victim services were funded by those who offend against both the criminal law and the provincial offences. So it's important for us to recognize both of those things.

I'm glad we're going to have an opportunity to talk about the effects, both good and bad, as we go through this debate, of this particular act. But I think it is fair to say that we would have had a much more fruitful discussion had we had some sort of notion what the selection criteria for the agreements between municipalities and the provincial government are going to be. It is very difficult to talk in the absence of those selection criteria because it is difficult for any of us to know what exactly we are talking about. Again, as is usual with this government, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know what the details are going to be, and the devil is in the detail.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): The minister has referred to a number of areas as to why we're getting into this legislation, why this legislation is coming forward. Really, if you look at the overall plan as to where our government has been taking us, the purpose of it of course is to reduce duplication, to eliminate delays. We believe with this type of legislation and the municipalities handling these smaller, minor types of offences that more time can be spent on the more serious types of offences, that there will be fewer delays and that this is a plan that will help substantially reduce those delays that have been occurring with the more serious types of offences.

There is no question that there has been duplication that has gone on with the process we currently have. In fact the process the member for Kingston and The Islands talked about -- he didn't say too much in favour of it, but actually this whole process of transferring the prosecuting of ticket offences started, I believe, with your government. I could be mistaken, but I feel it was your government that started that process.

Mr Gerretsen: Let's talk about the future, not the past.

Mr Tilson: Well, we are talking about the future. That's what we're trying to get away from, your doing. We believe this is the future. We have to solve these problems. There has been duplication. There has been waste. That's exactly what this legislation is doing. The legislation is to eliminate that.

The minister referred to the member for Kingston and The Islands, saying the mayor of Kingston -- I can tell you that in my own riding of Dufferin-Peel the municipalities are speaking in favour of this legislation. They want it, they believe they can service it, and they think they are going to be able to do it in a more efficient manner to allow the province to carry on in prosecuting the more serious crimes of this province. I hope all of this will be a unanimous support of this legislation.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I listened to the comments from the Attorney General on the dumping of the enforcing of offences on the region. This is a system that might work well in the cities, but I don't know, for example, in Kapuskasing and Hearst and all these municipalities, where a bylaw enforcement officer is going to be expected to go out and chase speeders who are speeding throughout the town. He used the example of in Windsor the mayor is happy.

But all the small towns that couldn't afford their own police service in the communities have turned over the services to OPP and now we're not going to have anybody in these communities. If the OPP is not going to enforce the laws, there is not going to be anybody in these communities who is going to be able to enforce the liquor offences and, as I said, speeding.

The municipalities, from what I can gather -- I was over at ROMA and they're saying: "Why are all these services being dumped on to the municipalities? Why are all the municipalities being told they should eliminate all their mayors and reeves and go to supercities in northern Ontario the same as they have in Toronto?" This is a trend that is happening, where people throughout northeastern Ontario are saying: "What's going to be left?

Are there only going to be the cities of North Bay, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Timmins, and all the other small municipalities are not going to be left with names, with municipal councillors or mayors or reeves? They'll just be forgotten in the mind of Mike Harris."

The Attorney General has enforced that once more today, that the municipalities are going to have to look after all the minor offences. They can't do it. They're just being dumped on day after day after day. Megacity and mega-week, it's just one after the other: Dump, dump, dump on to the small municipalities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Ed Doyle): Minister?

Hon Mr Harnick: I just want to read a letter that I received from the mayor of Kingston, Gary Bennett. Here's what he says:

"You requested municipalities within the Kingston and Napanee area to consider submitting proposals to your ministry to become partners in the Provincial Offences Act. This was very good news for our community, and the city of Kingston is prepared to become a partner with your ministry immediately.

"I appreciated your support of the city of Kingston's interest in this program and I have asked my staff to begin the process of communication with your ministry staff."

I also met with the mayor of London and --

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you also read the letter where he's complaining about the $23 million that he figures it's going to cost?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Minister.

Hon Mr Harnick: The mayor of London also said that because this particular bill would provide extra money to London, "It will allow us the opportunity to get more police officers on the street and hence greater driver safety and greater safety in general."

I think this is a very good opportunity for municipalities. It gets rid of duplication. It gets rid of confusion in the mind of the public. It provides more money for municipal taxpayers, who then can find better services from their municipality.

We're going to enter into memorandums of agreement with communities all over the province. Those memorandums will be set up in a way that we can maintain the existing standard of high-quality justice in the province.

This is a very good bill for municipalities. I have spoken to members of municipal councils all over the province. Every one of them wants this bill passed, they want it passed quickly, and I hope the opposition will accommodate the municipalities that they also represent.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum. Since the critic for our party is going to give the leadoff speech on this in a moment, I'm sure that more government members would want to hear her --

The Acting Speaker: We'll check for a quorum. Thank you.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): This bill is indeed a very important bill. It comes on the heels of a flurry of bills and legislative activity that we've seen in th