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

May 27, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L194 - Tue 27 May 1997 / Mar 27 Mai 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR SEXUAL MINORITIES

SUNSHINE GAMES

ANTI-RACISM FUNDING

HEARST CELEBRATIONS

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

KENT COUNTY

TOURISM

CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAMBLING

TRUCKING SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR SEXUAL MINORITIES

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP FUND

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

RETRAINING AND EDUCATION FINANCING

VICTIMS OF CRIME

OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT MAIL SERVICE

WOMEN'S ISSUES

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

RENT REGULATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

CLASS SIZE

TVONTARIO

FIRE SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MANDATORY INQUESTS

TUITION FEES

TVONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

OPPOSITION DAY

TRUCKING SAFETY

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I want to address my statement directly to the Minister of Labour concerning the appalling state of the Workers' Compensation Board, especially in dealing with appeals when it comes to injured workers.

The system is now in total disarray. I have a letter from the appeals tribunal in answer to one of my constituents, which states that very recently they are experiencing a significant increase in the volume of appeals, resulting in a delay in the process of appeals itself. Minister, this is a direct result of the cuts you have imposed, have already made, to the workers' compensation staff.

The letter says, "Based on current projections, we will be able to process your appeal in February-March 1998." This is almost one year. To tell the injured workers they have to wait for so long is totally unjust. How is an injured worker to provide for his family and his family needs, especially when he's the sole wage-earner faced with such a long waiting period? This is not what injured workers are expecting from their provincial government.

I call upon you, Minister, to respond properly to the appeal of the injured workers and give them the attention --

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

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR SEXUAL MINORITIES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario released a report called Systems Failure. It's a report on the experiences of sexual minorities in Ontario's health care and social services system.

I have to tell you it's damning in its findings. It's the result of a four-year study called Project Affirmation. It was done through surveys, over 1,200 people involved from the gay and lesbian and bisexual community, focus groups. Through it all, the results show systemic failure. There are stories ranging from unbelievable ignorance, insensitivity and hostility down to institutional stonewalling and incompetence.

The system has failed this population by failing to provide appropriate service. The result is that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgenders must make the decision whether to disclose the circumstances of their lives. If they do, they risk meeting with prejudice; if they do not, the health care and social service assistance they obtain may not correspond to their needs. Many simply avoid even needed health care and social services. Their access to health care and social services is compromised.

This report is important. It speaks to the failure of our systems for this community. I can't help but note that this is at a time when here in Toronto the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closing of Wellesley Hospital, the only hospital that has gone through a process of building a relationship with the community. I hope the minister will take these recommendations into mind when considering that.

SUNSHINE GAMES

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): I rise today in the Legislature to recognize the fifth annual Sunshine Games at Variety Village, which is located in my riding. I attended the games on May 4, as I have in previous years, to support this wonderful organization and the excellent work they do.

Variety Village is a facility catering to children and adults with special needs. It boasts world-class athletic facilities for physically challenged athletes. The Sunshine Games are competitions for teams comprised of athletes who use the facilities and business sponsors for each team.

This year's event saw 42 teams with over 400 volunteers. Each team paid a $5,000 sponsorship fee and also raised money through their employees' efforts. The event raised $329,000 for the Variety Village complex in Scarborough. All Scarborough branches of the Royal Bank of Canada supported the games and raised the most money. Their enthusiasm and vigour were contagious. Congratulations, Royal Bank employees.

Honorary chair was George Cohon, CEO of McDonald's. I commend his tireless efforts on behalf of Variety Village. Every year George and Susan Cohon are there for the participants. The disabled athletes appreciated the presence of Elvis Stojko, Barbara Turnbull and media people from BBS Television, Global and CITY-TV.

Variety Village is an amazing facility that gives children and adults with disabilities a chance to participate in athletics and to meet other young people who face similar challenges. I am honoured to be involved. I congratulate all the sponsors, athletes and volunteers.

ANTI-RACISM FUNDING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This government has shown no commitment to deal with racism or equity issues that are around us every day. One of the first acts of this government was to eliminate employment equity. It since has cut the budget of the Ministry of Citizenship and all anti-racism initiatives, not to mention the massive cuts at the Human Rights Commission.

In Ontario there still exist individuals who feel that racism is the order of the day. Unfortunately, we have seen this recently in the vandalism that took place at the Munchy King restaurant in Scarborough. The culprits were motivated by racism. Tony McPherson opened a small West Indian restaurant only four months ago. He arrived to open it one morning to find the back door pried open, dishes smashed, furniture broken, tablecloths ripped and racist hate messages spray-painted across the walls. This hate crime was a deliberate and malicious attack on a business owned by a person of colour.

Lawyer Bill McMurtry and artist Salome Bey responded by establishing a trust fund called PART: People Against Racism Trust. This action goes far beyond these two individuals, as hundreds have responded and called in their support, positive comments and funds. This should not exist in 1997, but unfortunately it does.

This incident shows that more must be done. Citizens and the media have said, "We do not tolerate these actions." This government's lack of action and leadership says otherwise. To combat racism, the government must rethink its function and do more.

HEARST CELEBRATIONS

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today I want to congratulate the town of Hearst in the riding of Cochrane North on its 75th anniversary.

Hearst, which is effectively known as the moose capital of Canada, is a thriving community with a population of about 6,000. At the turn of the century, it was called the village of Grant, but was renamed Hearst in November 1911 in honour of William Howard Hearst, the Minister for Lands, Forests and Mines at the time. Hearst was officially incorporated as a town on August 3, 1922.

Exciting events commemorating Hearst's 75th anniversary have been taking place since January and will continue until the end of the year. I would like to congratulate the mayor, Jean-Marie Blier, town councillors André Rhéaume and Donald Gratton and all the other councillors and numerous organizations for their efforts and sense of community spirit in organizing and bringing together this celebration.

Hearst is one of Ontario's largest producers of lumber, which has allowed it to become a modern centre with excellent medical, education and recreation facilities.

It is important to note that Hearst is a predominantly francophone community. The French language and culture thrive in Hearst, one of the first communities in Ontario to proclaim itself officially bilingual in 1978.

To everyone in Hearst, happy 75th anniversary.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement today is to the people of Ontario. Your health care system is strong and viable. This government is reinvesting health care dollars into key areas to save lives, and it is working.

For example, a recent Orillia Today newspaper story reads, "Firefighters from Rama first nations are on the cutting edge of a move to enhance the lifesaving skills of firefighters across the province."

I and fellow MPP Joe Tascona, the member for Simcoe Centre, recently attended an awards presentation at Rama first nations to honour front-line emergency workers. My colleague the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Health, was proud to recognize the achievements of four first nation firefighters and six Orillia ambulance attendants for saving 14 patients in Simcoe-Muskoka last year.

With this government's commitment to invest in health care, $15.5 million has been slotted for paramedic training, which was only available in the Toronto area and is now being taken right across rural Ontario. It's working.

The first fire department trained by Royal Victoria Hospital Base was Rama first nations, which responds to the Rama casino. Grand Bend visitor Edyth Hanson suffered a cardiac arrest last fall, and Rama firefighter Brad Savage is credited for saving her life, thanks to his new training in the use of a defibrillator.

The paramedic program in this province is giving us all an opportunity to survive, and it's working. The introduction of defibrillation has allowed patients to cheat death, return home and live productive lives.

This government is targeting health care investment into high-needs areas for better health care in the province despite the cuts from the Liberal government.

KENT COUNTY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): The following obituary, written by Sheila McBrayne, appeared in the Ridgetown Independent on May 7:

"Kent county passed away peacefully on April 28, 1997, after a brief illness contracted from Queen's Park, Ontario, from a carrier named Dr Peter Meyboom.

"Born in 1851, daughter of the pioneers who forged this countryside. She was a kind person who belonged to no one church, but incorporated many denominations. She was a hardworking, loyal and active community member. She was a charter member of democracy. Ironically, her diplomacy may have been a factor in contracting the Queen's Park virus.

"Kent county is survived by 22 children: Ridgetown, Howard, Highgate, Orford, Zone, Thamesville, Camden, Bothwell, Dresden, Wallaceburg, Dover, Tilbury, Tilbury East, Merlin, Romney, Wheatley, Chatham township, Raleigh, Erie Beach, Erieau, Harwich and Blenheim. Also survived by one foster child, Chatham, and 109,350 grandchildren.

"Other survivors (currently being inoculated to prevent the spread of this virus) include neighbours Elgin, Middlesex, Lambton and Essex counties.

"Funeral arrangements have been entrusted to the transition boards. Visitation is being held until January 1, 1998, when Kent county will be officially put to rest."

TOURISM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to bring to the attention of the assembly this government's complete lack of commitment to tourism in this province, particularly to northern Ontario tourism.

The government, as many members will know, is talking about privatizing the 18 Ontario travel information centres, which serve as a vital communication link between the operator and consumer and the tourist industry, and is putting these up for sale.

This is after the government has taken the same approach with the 1-800-ONTARIO service, which was privatized in June 1996, and with the selling off of the Ontario accommodations publications to Bell Global Solutions.

But to make matters worse, in central Algoma, the St Joseph Island Chamber of Commerce points out that on the latest Ontario roadmap St Joseph Island is not identified, while the neighbouring Sugar Island is identified. What is mystifying is why the government of Ontario on its roadmap would identify Sugar Island, which is part of the state of Michigan, but not St Joseph Island, which is part of the province of Ontario. Surely if this government wants to promote tourism and they are determined to privatize everything, they should at least get the road map right.

CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that May has been proclaimed Cystic Fibrosis Month.

Cystic fibrosis, or CF, is a genetic disease affecting primarily the respiratory and digestive systems. The most devastating damage takes place in the lungs, and virtually everyone with CF eventually dies of lung cancer. CF takes the lives of more young Canadians than any other inherited disease, and as yet there is no cure for the disease.

About one in every 25 Canadians carries the gene which causes cystic fibrosis and approximately one in every 2,500 children born in Canada has CF. There are 3,000 children, adolescents and adults with CF in Canada, 1,000 of whom live here in Ontario.

Since 1960 the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, a national voluntary health organization, has worked to improve the lives of young Canadians who are affected by this fatal disorder. With developments in research and treatment, the median age of survival has increased from four years in 1960 to over 30 years today. This is tremendous, but obviously not enough.

This year in Ontario the foundation provides incentive funding for 11 specialized CF clinics, representing a financial commitment of $630,000 for clinical and transplant services. A further $3.5 million is committed to research grants in Ontario.

I would ask each of the members in the House today to join me in showing their support for the fight against cystic fibrosis and in recognizing the extraordinary work of all members of the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAMBLING

This morning's paper, coincidentally, ran a story about how in the near future it could be possible to access horse racing by way of the Internet and to place a bet. Officials in the horse racing industry have made it clear that they cannot possibly police the user. You can't tell whether you've got an eight-year-old on the Internet or a 38-year-old.

Given that it's simply not possible to provide that kind of policing, will you take the necessary steps to prohibit that kind of service from being offered in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister can respond.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): A couple of things: First of all, the Ontario Jockey Club made the announcement in terms of the wagering that can be done through the telephone. Certainly this is not a new wagering initiative.

This is under the auspices of the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, a federal agency which regulates this type of betting. However, within Ontario, because we think it's very important, it's my understanding that the Ontario Racing Commission this week is considering a mandatory rule of racing that will limit parimutuel wagering to anyone who is 18 or over. Certainly this is very important to us and there will be severe penalties for doing this.

Secondly, as I understand from the conference the Ontario Jockey Club had yesterday, they will make sure -- if you've looked at the applications they have had, you have to have an account in order to do any type of wagering. Those accounts will require a piece of identification and things like credit cards as well to establish an account to bet. I understand they will be using that to ensure --

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

Mr McGuinty: The point is, you can't tell who's on the Internet that you happen to be communicating with. You can't tell whether there's an eight-year-old on the keyboard or a 38-year-old. What we're getting at here is a fundamental question of values.

Let's set aside the general issue of gambling for a moment. It is my sense, and I believe the Premier would agree with this, that the great majority of Ontarians do not favour giving access to gambling to our young people, children of the age of 12, 13, 14, 15. We've got a problem in the province right now. You've got to be 19 years old to operate a VLT, 18 years old to buy a lottery ticket, 16 years old to bet at the racetrack. We also know that there are 13-year-olds who are betting today at racetracks and we have unsupervised lottery ticket vending machines.

The question is very simple: Do you not feel we should have a law in Ontario today saying there is a minimum age for gambling of any kind whatsoever, and furthermore, if you can't restrict access to that age, you can't have the machine?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Clearly under Bill 75 there are severe penalties for any under-age gamblers. We went through this whole process. Members of the opposition are screaming about something, but we dealt with this. There are severe penalties, up to $250,000 for corporations that allow that type of violation.

There are other issues as well. There is no wagering that's legal on the Net right now. What they're talking about is a form of telephone wagering which has been approved by the federal agency since 1982. Clearly we believe it's important not to have minors betting. That's why we brought in Bill 75, to make sure we created the penalties to enforce these things. You can't even sell lottery products to under-age people.

Under the rules, there are severe penalties. The VL act says the same thing. Certainly the Ontario Racing Commission is going to bring in some very severe penalties to make sure that doesn't happen to the parimutuel betting.

Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure what's in Bill 75, but I can tell you right now, whatever it is, it's not preventing children in Ontario today from going to unsupervised lottery vending machines and buying tickets. The vending machine doesn't distinguish between an eight-year-old and a 38-year-old. Yesterday we sent one of our staff into a laundromat. There was nobody else in the place. He put in the money and he bought a Battleship lottery ticket. Battleship is a popular game targeting children. That's what's going on in Ontario today.

My question is very simple: Do you think that's a good thing? Do you think we ought to be encouraging children in Ontario to gamble? It's not much more complicated than that. If you don't think that's a good thing, then you've got to do something. Responsibility lies with you to ensure that can't happen, and Bill 75 isn't doing it. I believe we should have in Ontario a law that says there's a minimum age for gambling, no matter what kind of gambling, and furthermore, if you can't restrict access, you can't have the machine. Do you agree, Minister?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Bill 75 strengthens the prohibitions against the sale of lottery products to minors which make it illegal to sell lottery products to anyone under 18 years of age.

Clearly one of the initiatives resulting from Bill 75 as well is that when we have the amalgamation to make the new Alcohol and Gaming Commission, we'll now have more resources to put towards enforcement. That's important, to bring in more inspectors. Yes, we believe we should be doing something about it. We have, through Bill 75. The Ontario Racing Commission is doing something right now to make sure this does not happen through parimutuel betting. We're taking steps to make sure this does not happen and we believe it's very important.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I cannot believe you're comfortable with the minister's response and I hope to return to this in the near future with you.

Truck safety in the province today: Yesterday we introduced a bill. You've now had the opportunity to review that bill. It contains no surprises. It contains, in part, Bill 125, a bill which you and your government introduced and later withdrew. It contains recommendations specified by Target '97. There are no surprises in there. You've had the opportunity to study it. Are you prepared to support that bill? If there is any characterization for which there is consensus when it comes to this issue, that can be summed up in one word, and that one word is simply this: urgent. We have to do something and we have got to do it quickly. The bill has been introduced. Will you support it?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister will want to comment, and I'll give him opportunities in supplementaries, but let me say on his behalf that no Minister of Transportation has done more and introduced more measures. He has passed two road safety bills already in 1996. Your government, in five years, did nothing. The NDP government had five years and did nothing. No minister has taken a more aggressive stand, far more aggressive than any other province and any other state, and been more out in front of this issue, and nobody have I been prouder of than the current Minister of Transportation, Mr Palladini.

Now I might add that here we have a Liberal Party saying, "We're opposed to your bill because it's unconstitutional, but vote for our bill," which is also unconstitutional. I want to tell you --

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

Mr McGuinty: That kind of bluster hearkens back to a political era which I thought was long past. This is a serious issue. We have an opposition day motion --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Hamilton East, come to order. Member for Brampton North.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you will know that we have scheduled for this House this afternoon an opposition day motion sponsored by my party. We're going to be talking about this very issue. We're going to consume the entire afternoon with that. We're going to talk about our bill, we're going to talk about the urgency of the situation, and of course we're going to criticize your government for its failure to act.

We don't have to do that. Do you know what we might do instead? We could debate this bill right here this afternoon, and we're prepared to do that. We're prepared to address the substance of this issue and to give this bill second reading this afternoon so we can move forward on this issue. We're not claiming that our bill is perfect, but we believe it can go out to committee on a quick basis and be improved. Do you not think that's a good idea? We'll deal with this bill this afternoon, second reading.

Hon Mr Harris: I think the debate this afternoon could be productive. I'm sure, given your stand -- and I know your bill is not perfect, because I've read it. When the minister comes in with his comprehensive bill next week, the debate today will be quite useful. We appreciate your support. But let me tell you this: The minister's bill is far more comprehensive, far tougher than anything we've seen from you. It will be introduced next week, and you will have the opportunity to have your hearings, as you have always wanted. We will hold you to how we can have this bill expedited and passed through the Legislature.

Mr McGuinty: The minister said a number of things, but one of the things he said was, "Wheels separating from trucks is a very serious problem, one that shows no signs of improving and one that can't wait any longer."

Premier, we agree. What we've heard from your government to date is that this matter is of the utmost urgency. A bill was tabled and then subsequently withdrawn. We tabled a bill; you won't support it. You tell us you've got another bill in the works. Here's another offer for you. Table your bill today. We will waive our opposition day motion. We agree to have second reading debate today and to vote today. Will you agree to that, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I guess the difference between our government and you when you were in government is (

a) we act and (

b) we take the time to do it properly.

The bill will be ready next week. It will be comprehensive, it will be legal, it will meet constitutional challenges that you say even your bill will not, and we will have the hearings if you want the hearings.

But listen. Here is a party that -- in 1989 the Liberal government stopped enforcing weight limits on dump trucks. It wasn't until we got elected that we enforced that. The NDP wouldn't enforce it; we had to enforce it. Here is a party that when we brought in the small bill, and now it will be incorporated into the comprehensive one, what did you say? You said: "No, we want hearings on this, because we hear that this bill will be ineffective. We want hearings on the bill." We said: "Fine. We will bring in the comprehensive bill. You can have the hearings that you wanted." Now you want hearings on your bill.

Now you can have the hearings you've all asked for, but you will have it on a legal, comprehensive, well-thought-out bill, far in excess of anything the flip-flopping Liberals have ever proposed for this province.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. When I asked you a question a couple of weeks ago about your coup d'état in Chatham-Kent, you said your local member tells you that everything's fine, that your scheme has brought support throughout the community.

Minister, I visited Ridgetown last week, and they tell me a different story, that you and your local member are very wrong. I sat in a room with about 20 community leaders, most of whom voted for the Conservative Party in the last election, and they are angry about Dr Doom's megacity that has been imposed on them. To quote Jim Brown, who owns a newspaper in Ridgetown, he says, "I will refrain from using the term `Tory jackboot' even if it is closer to what is taking place here" --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Marchese: It's a quotation.

The Speaker: It doesn't matter if it's a quotation; you can't use it as a third party or a first party. The fact is that it's out of order and unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Marchese: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

Minister, I have a question for you. Will you halt the restructuring process and go down to Chatham-Kent so you can inform yourself of what's going on?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It was the communities and municipalities in Kent county that requested that the province appoint a commissioner to come in and resolve the deadlock they had reached as a result of trying to negotiate a restructuring. It was as a result of their request, a local request to have somebody come in and assist them to do that.

The commissioner, Dr Meyboom, came in, held public hearings, met with all the councils, developed a proposal and presented it to the councils. The majority of the councils agreed with it. My colleague from Chatham tells me that the vast majority of people in Chatham-Kent are extremely happy with the restructuring, very happy with it, and that's the way that it should be.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Leach: The restructuring commission made a recommendation. That recommendation is binding on the municipalities and on the province.

Mr Marchese: Most of the 20 people I met with are municipal councillors. They told me very clearly that you are wrong in what you're saying and that the member is wrong as well. You're disregarding that. What you are doing is leaving a stench of autocratic behaviour all over Ontario. You've done so in Toronto, you've done so in Chatham-Kent, and you're doing it in Ottawa. That's the other question I'm moving myself to right now.

On May 13 you wrote a letter to Merle Nicholds, mayor of Kanata, about Ottawa-Carleton restructuring and you said the following:

"Any restructuring order would have to set out an interim council and other arrangements. This could include either the calling of a special election or appointing a new council or councils from among those elected in November."

What this clearly means is that you're prepared to make the voters' choices into a mere shortlist for your hired commissars, who will pick the actual council.

Will you today announce that you didn't know what you were signing and that you won't appoint a council either in Ottawa-Carleton or anywhere else in the province?

Hon Mr Leach: I am really surprised and disappointed at the lack of knowledge the member has of Bill 26. What I was saying in that letter just points out exactly what's in the existing legislation, what's presently in Bill 26 that allows the municipalities, if there is a restructuring done between election periods, the options they have. One of those options is to hold another election. The other option is that they can appoint members to an interim council, and that's very clearly laid out in the existing legislation.

Mr Marchese: Minister, I just quoted you, the letter you have written. The letter says:

"Any restructuring order would have to set out an interim council and other arrangements. This could include either the calling of a special election or appointing the new council or councils from among those elected in November."

Are you saying that this is the kind of process you are leading to, that that is what is acceptable to you?

That's why I say you are leaving a stench of autocratic behaviour across all of Ontario. You nod your head. He nods his head.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: He talks about this member being a bonehead, if I heard him correctly. But that member is being followed by entire communities all over Ontario where restructuring is happening, and if there is a bonehead in this House, the communities are seeing one right across from me.

The Speaker: Member for Fort York, I did not --

Mr Marchese: I heard the member very clearly.

The Speaker: I'm sure you did. I'm not questioning whether the member for Fort York is being forthright about it. I just didn't hear it. If the minister did in fact call him a bonehead, it's out of order. I would ask the minister to withdraw.

Hon Mr Leach: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you. Member for Fort York.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): That is terrible. We all know who the bonehead is.

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, please come to order. Thank you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That's the kind of comment you would expect from an old fossil.

The Speaker: You know, this is degenerating. I would ask the members of the House to please stop the name-calling.

Member for Fort York, put your question, please.

Mr Marchese: How much time do I have, Speaker?

The Speaker: You've got about 10 seconds.

Mr Marchese: Minister, I'll try again. Will you confirm that when the people of Ottawa-Carleton elect a council this fall, those people, all of them, will serve their full terms unless they themselves resign?

Hon Mr Leach: To repeat the options available to the municipality after the election this fall, if they decide to restructure between elections, it's their option to call another election. It's their option. The council that's elected has the authority to call another election. They also have the wherewithal if they so choose to select an interim council from their members. All of that is very clearly laid out. What we were doing in my memorandum to the mayors was to point out the options available to them if they don't restructure in time for the 1998 elections. Surely, if the member had even glanced through Bill 26, that would have been very obvious to him.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR SEXUAL MINORITIES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Premier. This morning the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario issued a report called Systems Failure, funded by Health Canada. It's a thorough study of the sexual minorities in Ontario's experiences with the health care system and the social services system in this province. Copies of the report have been delivered to the ministers of health, community and social services, education and training, and citizenship and culture.

Almost one quarter of the people surveyed had not told their doctor about their sexual orientation. Two thirds of those said they had not voiced concerns or asked questions about health issues because they feared that knowledge of their sexual orientation would negatively affect the way they were treated. Fifteen percent of the people surveyed said they had not gone for regular physical checkups because they believed homophobia would negatively affect the way they were treated, and 18% had not gone back for follow-up visits.

Premier, does it concern you that so many Ontarians are not receiving adequate health care or feel they do not have access to health care because of the discrimination they have experienced in the system?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes, it does, and it concerns the Minister of Health and it concerns the ministry and it concerns this government. I can tell you that we are doing everything we can in awareness, in support for gays and lesbians, in support for HIV and AIDS patients; another $10.9 million provided by the ministry for 11 outpatient HIV/AIDS clinics throughout the province.

The issue, though, is one that need concern us all. Certainly there are proactive and positive approaches we can all, as 130 ambassadors, take with all agencies within our ridings.

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

Hon Mr Harris: There are also, of course, anti-discrimination measures. If there are allegations or abuses or violations that should be brought to the Human Rights Commission --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: I'm glad you're concerned, because you can take leadership. In fact one of the recommendations in the report, a very clear recommendation, calls on the provincial government to provide proactive, top-down leadership on this issue. The problem is that you have a Health Services Restructuring Commission out there that's recommending the closure of hospitals where some of the greatest advances in providing health care to sexual minorities have been made, primarily the Wellesley and Women's College hospitals.

Tom Warner, one of the people presenting the report this morning, said this about the Wellesley:

"There is no other hospital in Ontario that we are aware of that has been proactive in this area. To lose the Wellesley does not provide an incentive to other hospitals to provide the same thing."

Premier, you've instructed the Health Services Restructuring Commission to take into consideration the needs of specific communities like rural areas of the province or chronic care patients. Will you make sure the commission is instructed to consider the needs of taxpayers who belong to sexual minorities when it is making its decisions?

Hon Mr Harris: As you know, all of us are free to give advice and recommendations and thoughts to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. Indeed it is set up that way. I would encourage everyone who has any thoughts or any advice to do so directly to the Health Services Restructuring Commission.

Mrs Boyd: You know very well you've given direct instructions around rural hospitals, so that doesn't really answer the question. You know that to do nothing costs us all a great deal, because there's a human cost to the individuals who are highly stressed and damaged in their self-esteem, who can't get the services they need. There's the cost to OHIP and government ministries and private insurance companies when people need to shop around for unbiased services, to undergo repeated or unnecessary medical procedures, or when they are discouraged from receiving follow-up care or undergo protracted mental health counselling because service is inappropriate.

Hospitals have developed specialized services because the communities they serve have demanded those services. We see Wellesley Hospital with a proactive approach to serving sexual minorities, Montfort serving the francophone population, Women's College providing unparalleled care for women and Doctors' Hospital working with immigrant communities -- they're all on the chopping block, Premier. When will you show leadership and tell the commission, as you did with rural hospitals --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for London Centre. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: We have put forward government policies to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. We have indicated, as has the Health Services Restructuring Commission and I think a lot of the hospitals themselves, that the services -- the men and women who provide the services: the doctors, the nurses, the professionals, the paraprofessionals -- in the view of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, do not come from bricks and mortar but they come from policies and they come from people. We have asked the Health Services Restructuring Commission to bear that in mind.

The policies and directions of the government are consistent with providing service to all kinds of people throughout the province: French-speaking, as you say, in the case of Montfort; in the case of the gay and lesbian community those areas that specialize in AIDS and HIV; and seniors' and women's health and other areas. We've asked the commission --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. New question, official opposition.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier will know, the last of 23 first nations persons who were charged at Ipperwash was acquitted. Every single first nations person charged has either been acquitted or the charges have been dropped before going to court. Today the OPP officer who was convicted is before the courts for sentencing.

The trials are over. We now are demanding a commitment by you, Premier, to hold a public inquiry. We are prepared to present evidence that shows that the government and the Premier's office played a key role in the Ipperwash affair. The government made the major decisions and is responsible for the handling of this situation. The question is this: Will you now commit, Premier, to holding a public inquiry so we and others can lay the evidence before an independent inquiry that can fairly determine the role you and your government played in this affair?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we've been quite clear on this. Certainly from the legal advice, we are obligated, we feel, to wait until the legal issues and cases are resolved. I've indicated that to the Legislature. If you have information you think should be made public, go ahead.

Mr Phillips: We already have made it and we're anxious for a forum in which to present it and have some adjudication of it.

I'll be very blunt, Premier. You are going to do whatever you can to avoid a public inquiry. We've examined the terms of reference of other inquiries. For example, in the Westray mine inquiry the criminal trial proceedings occurred alongside the public inquiry. The terms of reference said, for example, "No evidence can be heard by the Westray public inquiry until all evidence at the related criminal trial is heard." It provided the forum and the vehicle for that.

Premier, will you today table the legal opinion that you've referred to so we can examine that legal opinion, and will you examine the terms of reference of the Westray mine inquiry to determine if we can use the same model here? Frankly, we are not going to quit on this. We are going to continue to demand a public inquiry so we can get to the bottom of this very, very sorry affair.

Hon Mr Harris: I think we've been clear, the Attorney General has been very clear, and we've been quite consistent and quite open with all the information that we can. If you have tabled and made public all the information you have, I'm happy to defend any allegations you have on the basis of that information. There's not a single shred of evidence there that there was anything untoward or inappropriate in the actions of this government. If you have anything else, go ahead and table it. In the meantime, there are court cases and we have a legal obligation to ensure that those cases go forward.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question to the Premier on the same matter. Everything we learn about what happened at Ipperwash on September 6 adds to the need for an immediate commitment by the government to a public inquiry. It's time the government stopped stonewalling on this.

According to the testimony that lead to the acquittal of the young Chippewa youth, the police grabbed Bernard George, a band councillor, called him a savage, kicked and beat him and dragged him by the hair until he lost consciousness. This happened during the same period that led to the fatal shooting of Dudley George.

The issue goes beyond the guilt or innocence of one individual or group of individuals. We have to know what decisions were made by whom that led to this sorry, sorry affair and these events. When will the Premier commit to a public inquiry so that all of the facts can be known and we don't leave one police officer out to dry?

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Algoma. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: When the court cases are over.

Mr Wildman: The cases have been dealt with. There is one case that is going to be heard in the fall. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Premier and the government from committing now to a public inquiry that will not involve evidence that will deal with that particular case. It's time the Premier stood up and said he is prepared to have all the facts come out so that we know what led to the killing of Dudley George and to the force that was used by the police in this case, instead of the approach the police had used in the past.

The government wants this issue to fade away. It's not going to fade away; it's not going to disappear. There are demands that all the evidence be brought forward so we can know the truth of what led to this unfortunate set of circumstances. The only way to do that and to silence the demands for the truth is to have a public inquiry. Will you now commit to a public inquiry and make it clear that your government wants all the facts to come out?

Hon Mr Harris: Both myself and the Attorney General made it clear that we want to ensure that all the facts come out. At the appropriate time we'll do that.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP FUND

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Environment. In my riding of Hastings-Peterborough protection of the environment is very important, particularly regarding the water quality. Recently it was announced our government has successfully re-established an environmental cleanup fund which will assist in the cleanup of contaminated sites across the province. Would you please explain to the members of the House further details of this initiative?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'd like to thank the member for raising this issue. It's an important issue when we're talking about a fund that the ministry has had for some period of time, called the environmental cleanup fund. I want to inform members of the House that this fund was decreased by the previous government from some $23 million down to $1.9 million. That's how they saved money: They decreased the potential funding for emergencies that would occur across this province.

In two short years we have increased that funding from $1.9 million to $10.5 million. We recognize the importance of cleaning up abandoned contaminated sites, not only for the environment but for the economy. The increase to the fund will enable this ministry to better respond to environmental emergencies and to expedite ongoing contaminated site remediation in our province.

Mr Danford: I'm pleased to hear that funding has been increased to address the needs of cleaning up many areas in our province. The Deloro site that is located in my riding of Hastings-Peterborough used arsenic for refining the minerals during its operations. The Deloro site is one of the most contaminated sites in the province, and over the past 10 years there hasn't been one thing done to help actually clean up this site.

Would you please tell the House whether funds from the environmental cleanup fund have been earmarked for any particular projects, and if so, would you outline who will be benefiting in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: The Deloro mine site is perhaps one of the most unknown environmental disasters which occurred in this province over the past 50 years. There is arsenic which is released into the Moira River, which eventually comes out of the river and into Lake Ontario around Belleville.

Over the next year funds that have been used annually for ongoing rehabilitation of this site will be allocated to the next stage of the work. The action plan for the site will be to protect the public's health and safety and fulfil our environmental commitment to that region.

Other areas of concern that the fund is looking at are areas for a PCB-contaminated site in Smithville and the Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour. Our government recognizes the importance of re-establishing the environmental cleanup fund. We are not going to decimate it as the previous government did. We are going to have money on hand to address emergencies that occur in this province and we will address them.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Premier. Now that Bill 106 has been passed, the massive job of reassessing all Ontario properties by April 1998 will begin. This short time frame and the partial contracting out of interior inspections will guarantee that Ontario property taxpayers will have the poorest-quality assessment roll that has ever been returned after reassessment.

Two private companies have been awarded contracts to do some of this work. Private contractors receive one day's training from the ministry, after which they may hire and train inspectors to do the work. We have a situation where contractors with one day's training will be hiring and training inexperienced people to collect data that will be the basis of the reassessment. Premier, do you think it's prudent or fair to Ontario taxpayers to have to have their tax assessments based on such an unprofessional procedure?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Finance has answered this question before. He's not here today. I think his commitment is that the assessments will be done professionally; they'll be done correctly.

I would suggest to you, I suppose, that they're never done perfectly, which is why there seem to be appeals all the time regardless of how experienced the assessors are. But there is no question that we are in fact, because of the inaction of two former governments, having to play catch-up with reassessments. We are contacting professionals in the private sector to assist us with that.

Mr Kwinter: It's interesting; I have an ad that has been placed by one of the successful contractors. It says: "We require a highly organized, self-motivated individual...must have excellent communication skills, neat appearance, and a reliable car. General knowledge of residential home construction required."

There is not one single mention of any kind of expertise or knowledge in assessment matters. Not only that, but studies have shown that the contractors are going to get three times as much money for doing the job with non-professionals as the ministry pays their own professionals.

Do you think this is reasonable, that citizens of Ontario, property taxpayers, are going to be subjected to unprofessional assessments and are going to have to pay three times as much for the privilege? Does this make any common sense?

Hon Mr Harris: I can tell you what does not make common sense: that for the last 10 years -- and you may argue longer than 10; you may even have gone back to a former government -- certainly the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party refused to move on reassessing, so there is a backlog to have a fair assessment system, and we are playing catch-up.

Here are the criteria: Only private sector suppliers who have experience in property appraisal, such as real estate appraisers and adjusters, are eligible to respond to the request for tender to provide onsite property inspection services. They're inspecting residential properties, not valuing them. They are assisting the professionals in the valuation. The ministry is providing training in both the classroom and the field on ministry procedures and forms. The suppliers will have to follow processes that are established by the ministry, and we have every confidence they will do so in a competent and professional fashion.

Yes, it's regrettable that we have to now bring in outside help because you guys wouldn't do anything for 10 years.

RETRAINING AND EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Premier. Ed Sharpe, a 26-year-old married father of two children, was in my office on Friday. Last year he left his job at the hospital due to the cuts to health care. He accepted an exit package that included a significant contribution from the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel. He chose out of alternatives offered to take a course at Sault College in mechanical engineering.

Over the last month that plan has begun to unravel. You announced in your budget an end to HSTAP, and last week he discovered that the college, because of funding cuts, will no longer offer mechanical engineering or any other related options Ed might be interested in.

He is now out of a job, must go out of town to take this program and pay for it himself.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mr Martin: What have you to say to Ed and the hundreds of other families you've left twisting in the wind by dropping HSTAP and by cutting funding to colleges?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Education and Training will have a dandy answer for you.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'm sure, as the honourable member knows, we can't discuss individual cases, although I'd be more than happy to discuss this individual case with him at some point if he'd send to my office the details.

I can tell you this: I'm very pleased to inform the member that we have increased our support for students, both mature students and regular students, in our colleges and universities. We've increased the amount of funding available to them through OSAP and other programs by double over the last two years. There are programs available to help students in all circumstances in this province because we understand the importance of education and training. We understand the importance of that for people who are re-entering the job market. I'd be more than happy to discuss with the member opposite this case at any point.

Mr Martin: I'm disappointed that the Premier chose to dish this off. There was a letter written on May 14 by the Health Sector Training and Adjustment Panel, signed by the co-chairs, that said in part, "We would like to express our concern about the difficult position in which over 1,200 laid-off health sector employees now find themselves as a result of the cancellation of funding for HSTAP."

Minister, the fate of Ed Sharpe and his young family is in your hands. He agreed to leave his job because your government said you would help him get something else. Will you live up to your commitment to this man and to his family?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd be more than glad to discuss this case with the member opposite at some point if he'd like to send me the details of it. Perhaps there is a program we can point him to, because I can tell you there are any number of support systems available.

Obviously one of the things that is offered to people when they're making a transition from one job to another is a variety of different supports in which they get to choose what the training is that will best help them get to their own future. I think that's a critical part of that program. I'd be very happy to discuss this with the member opposite and to explain to him any of the number of support systems that are available in Ontario.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Solicitor General and it has to do with the important issue of the role of victims in the criminal justice system.

Our government's plan places a high priority on improving safety in Ontario's communities and properly dealing with violent crime. In the election of June 1995 I promised the constituents of Hamilton Mountain that once in government we would make certain that victims of crime would be given an enhanced role to play in the criminal justice process. I also promised that if elected, we would not ignore them as the previous two governments had done.

Minister, could you please tell my constituents high atop Hamilton Mountain what this government is doing to follow through on that very important promise?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): To those folks high atop Hamilton Mountain and others in this province, I want to assure them that this government has a strong commitment to victims of crime and our actions are clearly indicating that. We are restoring the balance between the rights of offenders and the needs of victims of crime. Last year, unlike the two previous governments, we moved ahead on a Victims' Bill of Rights.

We have enhanced the victim crisis assistance and referral service, which assists police to ensure victims get the appropriate assistance and service as soon as possible. The four current sites in Kingston, Sault Ste Marie, Brantford and Metro were expanded to eight new locations last year in Windsor, Belleville, Sarnia, Caledon, Haldimand, Norfolk, Peterborough and Barrie. There will be an additional eight new locations this year. The total funding for this fiscal year is $4.5 million for the 20 sites.

We continue to fund at the $9-million level 34 sexual assault centres. We introduced automated information referral service and the victim notification service and we're committed to spending --

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

Mr Pettit: It's encouraging to me, and I'm sure to the people of Hamilton Mountain, to hear that steps are finally being taken to refocus the justice system to assist victims instead of criminals. But I'd further like to ask the Solicitor General about a related commitment we made: a commitment to keep victims properly informed through the various stages of the justice system. Minister, would you please update us on the government's progress in this area?

Hon Mr Runciman: In the recent budget, the government announced a new victim support line, which is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to help victims overcome the impact of crime. By calling 1-888-579-2888, victims of crime have a number of options, including speaking directly in person to a counsellor who can refer the victim to programs in their community.

In addition, Ontario is the first jurisdiction in Canada to provide an automated victim notification service. A victim can register to be automatically updated when an offender is scheduled for release or when there is any change in an offender's status. They can also have input into the parole process by expressing concerns about the release of an offender into their community.

It's very important that victims are aware of this new service, and therefore I am sending out information to all members of the Legislature this week.

OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. There are teachers, students, board officials, taxpayers and parents with the Ottawa Board of Education who have made it perfectly clear that you have no legal right to the $31 million in locally raised education taxes which you are demanding from the board. Now, finally, one of your own caucus colleagues is saying you're wrong in trying to extract the money. He's the member for Ottawa-Rideau, and I'd like to tell you what he said: "The truth of the matter is that the board is right.

All we're doing here is causing bad feelings. I just want to see it off the table. Let's get on to more important stuff."

Minister, I couldn't agree more. I think the member for Ottawa-Rideau is right, don't you?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I know the member opposite is aware of the fact that we for some time have been talking with the Ottawa board, have been negotiating with the Ottawa board. If you'll recall, during the social contract there were some permanent savings that were asked for by school boards across the province, including the Ottawa school board. Those were permanent savings.

Virtually all the boards in Ontario have found those savings and have now reflected those in their budgets. Unfortunately, Ottawa has not done that to this point in time, and we are continuing to negotiate with them to find mechanisms to do that. The mechanisms they found under the social contract were sharing some resources with coterminous and local boards, and that seems to be the approach that would be most appropriate now. However, we're willing to listen to any other suggestions they might have.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Patten: The suggestion they have is that it's their tax money that they have paid already and you're trying to extract it. You have no right to the money, and you know it, because it's double taxation. The member for Ottawa-Rideau knows that. He's a lawyer and he's a judge. I would listen to him carefully.

You're creating anxiety in the community. The only provincial funding that board has received is for the McHugh centre, which serves 254 kids with special needs, and you withdrew $3 million from them. You're going to use kids as pawns in this particular arrangement.

The Ottawa board has already had to cut $22 million from its budget this year, and now you want to put into jeopardy other educational services by blackmailing the board to hand over $31 million, to remove it totally from education to pay for the ill-timed tax cut. If you won't stand in your place and admit that you've made a mistake, will you at least have the courage to respond to the invitation from the taxpayers to go to Ottawa to explain to them face to face why locally raised education taxes are being taken away from the Ottawa Board of Education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: To correct the member opposite, first of all, no one is blackmailing anyone in this case. We have had discussions with the people in Ottawa. We have directed staff to continue those discussions to make a reality out of the permanent savings that were offered under the social contract and perhaps to use a template of the social contract as a way of finding those.

Let's be clear about this. There are no programs in jeopardy in Ottawa. In fact, much of what the honourable member opposite has talked about is really the unfairness of the general legislative grant program, a program that treats some students in the province as second-class students. This government is ending that general legislative grant program. Your government, while it was in power, could have put in a fair funding system for students in Ontario. You didn't. We are, and it will be in place by next year.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask for unanimous consent for Mr Guzzo, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, to have a supplementary to this question.

The Speaker: Except that there is no supplementary to this question; it has been asked.

New question; third party, the member for Nickel Belt.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the member for Ottawa-Rideau to have a supplementary to this question? No. I heard a no.

GOVERNMENT MAIL SERVICE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. You are in the process now of privatizing the mail and printing services of about 15 ministries, involving 130 employees, 30% of whom have either physical or developmental handicaps. On May 5, in response to a question from the member for Ottawa Centre, you said that extra points would be awarded to potential private sector employers who hired existing staff, but you made no mention whatsoever about staff with disabilities, such as Lisa Patterson, who has been with the Ministry of Health for 16 years and who is deaf.

I have here the approximately 90 pages of your request for proposal, your RFP, as it is usually known. Could you tell me where in these 90 pages there is any reference whatsoever to the employment of people with disabilities if a new employer takes over these tasks?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I don't have the 90 pages in front of me and I'm not able to tell the member what page and what paragraph, but I will say again that in terms of the existing employees, and that includes all employees, the firms that submit bids will be given higher marks if they employ current employees, any current employees. They will be given higher points and be more likely to win the bid if they hire current employees.

Mr Laughren: It wouldn't matter if the Chair of Management Board had these 90 pages in front of him; he wouldn't be able to find in them any reference to people with disabilities. That is truly monstrous. You are putting the most vulnerable people there are in your employ out on the street if the private sector employer doesn't guarantee to hire those with disabilities. It's plain and simple. Will you make a guarantee today that any successful bidder will be required to employ those existing employees who have disabilities? Will you make that commitment today?

Hon David Johnson: We haven't put anybody out on the street with regard to the mail services, the courier services. We're going through a process because the services cost the taxpayers about $12 million a year. There is a considerable cost to this particular service, about $12 million a year. In the estimation of the government, through this process several million dollars will be saved, but at the same time we have concern for the challenged employees, for all employees associated with the province of Ontario.

There is a weighting; the weighting varies function by function. I will assure the member opposite that the weighting will be part of the final consideration, which has not been made at this point in time. That will be taken into account, and those employers who act more progressively in that vein will be given higher marks and will be more likely to win.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. In our government's budget of May 6, the finance minister announced many new initiatives and program funding. Recently you came to Hamilton and met with representatives and advocates of women's issues, including the women's centre, the sexual assault centre, the rape crisis centre and the native women's centre, to name only a few. They expressed lots of concerns and interests to you and me, and I thought it was a very good dialogue we had with them.

In light of what we heard at that meeting, I'd like you to explain to this House how some of the budget announcements will affect women in my riding and indeed across the province.

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you to the member for Hamilton West. We actually did have a very interesting afternoon and great opportunities to discuss the budget, the implications of the budget, and focus on services that were important for women in the areas of health care, child care, small business development, supports to families and strengthening community safety.

I would add that the budget supports job creation for women through tax cuts and through supports to small business. I'd also like this House to know that women are the most successful creators of small business, as we discussed that afternoon, at three times the rate of men, and they're creating new jobs at four times the national rate. So we had a very interesting discussion.

Our administrative savings have held us in good stead across all ministries, and with that, we were allocated some 27 million new dollars in the next four years to provide more services and prevention programs with regard to our violence-against-women initiatives. It was a good afternoon. Thank you very much for the question.

Mrs Ross: I agree with you. I think the meeting went very well, despite what some other members might say. The $27 million will help in dealing with violence against women. We all recognize that the safety of our communities, especially the safety of women, is a critical factor contributing to a better Ontario. Can you outline for me and for the other members how this $27 million will be utilized and how it will affect the women in my riding?

Hon Mrs Cunningham: In response to the specific question about the $27 million, this is a four-year funding program. This year we have been allocated some 5.5 million new dollars. As we look at all the violence-against-women initiatives, the money that is also spent through the victims' justice fund, the dollars that are put into housing supports for abused women through the Ministry of Housing, we're looking at well over $100 million and we're adding another $5.5 million.

The challenge we will have in spending this money is in discussing across all ministries, with community agencies, around the areas of prevention and new programs and especially taking the advice of the people we're consulting with. Hopefully, some time within the next four weeks, we'll be able to make an announcement on a new framework of programs, over 50 agencies and 500 responses to the initiative we put out early in January, and we'll be able to make that announcement with the good advice we've had --

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

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Attorney General. Over the past few months a number of issues around your centralization of the family support plan offices have been raised in the House. You have attempted to respond to those. Indeed one of our colleagues, I understand, faces criminal charges resultant from his attendance at that office -- alleged incidents that have occurred.

That office is still in a mess. I have today sent over to your office copies of private information from one client of that office that was sent to somebody else, information that should not be in the hands of anyone other than the individual to whom this information applies.

Can you tell us what steps you'll take to ensure that information of this nature doesn't get sent to the wrong person when your office isn't responding to the other person's original question? What safeguards do you have in place? When you've had a chance to review this issue, will you share that with the House and tell us just how this type of travesty could occur in Ontario today?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I can tell you the last time I received a complaint from this member the facts he put to me were all wrong. I'm prepared to take a look at the details of what this particular issue involves. I'm prepared to get back to the member and advise him about what the problem is and how we can deal with the solution if indeed there is a problem at the family support plan's end of this particular involvement. I await to receive the facts from the member.

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent with regard to a motion pertaining to the privacy commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me seek consent first. Do we have unanimous consent with respect to the privacy commissioner? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Ann Cavoukian, to act as interim Information and Privacy Commissioner until November 30, 1997, or until the Legislative Assembly appoints a permanent Information and Privacy Commissioner, whichever is earlier."

And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

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

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVOntario is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it truly a provincial asset;

"Whereas TVOntario continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues; and

"Whereas TVOntario provides unique services to people living in northern and remote communities;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that TVOntario continues to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

That's signed by a good number of residents from the communities of Webequie and Moose Factory in my riding and other points north, and I have attached my name to that petition as well.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from residents in the riding of East York. It reads:

"A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the protections of the Rent Control Act; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to allow a landlord to charge a tenant who moves into an apartment whatever the landlord can get away with; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to raise the limit of how high rents can increase for all tenants; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to make it easier to demolish or convert existing affordable rental housing; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario is proposing to take away the rent freeze which has been successful in forcing some landlords to repair their buildings;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing rent laws which provide true protection for tenants in place."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition from the Triple X Hunt Club. It reads as follows:

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic of illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I sign my name to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have the pleasure of introducing a petition which has been signed by 30,000 people in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and it's my pleasure to affix my signature to that, which reads as follows:

"Whereas Premier Harris had reneged on his election promise not to close hospitals; and

"Whereas the Harris hospital closing commission wants patients to leave Ontario hospitals quicker and sicker; and

"Whereas the Riverside Hospital in Ottawa is one of the most cost-effective community hospitals in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Riverside Hospital has been recognized nationally for the quality care that Ontarians deserve;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that Premier Harris honour his promise and not close the Riverside Hospital."

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): I have a very brief petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, support our OPP, and especially Sergeant Deane, in their testimony and action taken at Ipperwash park. We believe all the OPP acted properly in their line of duty."

The petition is signed by approximately 1,000 people.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to it.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is another several-hundred-signatures petition regarding class sizes and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for Sudbury, 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.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The campaign to save TVOntario continues all across the province. We have thousands more signatures on the petitions. In light of the government's recent $6.5-million further cut to TVO, I think it's important these petitions are listened to by the government.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality commercial-free television that continues to focus 70% of its programming

schedule on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVO is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVO continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

I'm very proud to sign my name to that.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): The firefighters are still concerned about Bill 84. I have a petition here that comes from Hammond, Orléans, Clarence Creek and Ottawa.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Minister of Health to provide appropriate levels of health care funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I affix my signature.

MANDATORY INQUESTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is another petition gathered by the United Steelworkers of America.

"To the Honourable Solicitor General and 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 industry; and

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

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

Of course I affix my signature to it.

TUITION FEES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition here signed by hundreds of my constituents concerned about the costs of post-secondary education.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas post-secondary educational costs have been increasing due to economic and technological changes;

"Whereas student tuition fees have increased greatly over the past few years;

"Whereas the cost of living for students continues to increase;

"Whereas students are unable to continue their education due to high costs;

"Whereas future economic growth depends on access to post-secondary education;

"Whereas the panel on the Future Directions for Postsecondary Education recognizes the inadequacy in financial resources available to post-secondary education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to renew its financial commitment for post-secondary education and to recognize that a multi-year commitment to the restoration of support must be guaranteed."

I'm proud to sign my name to this and credit Claudio Monteleone in Thunder Bay for beginning this drive.

TVONTARIO

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

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVO is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVO continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

This is submitted to me by the students from the École Sacré-Coeur in Kapuskasing. I affix my signature to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I add my signature to many more petitions, and I'm sure there will be more coming.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UNE TOLÉRANCE ZÉRO EN MATIÈRE D'ABUS DE SUBSTANCES

Mr Young moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 134,

An Act to promote zero tolerance for substance abuse by children / Projet de loi 134, Loi encourageant une tolérance zéro concernant l'abus de substances par des enfants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Do you have any comments to make?

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Thank you, Speaker, I do. In greater numbers, our children are choosing deadly companions which threaten to destroy their minds and bodies. Substance abuse among our youth has surged to its highest level since 1980, and our society's apathy and ignorance have paved the way.

The bill I am introducing today is our wake-up call. It will bring these youth together with their parents to confront this tragic problem and get the help they need to solve it.

OPPOSITION DAY

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I move opposition day motion number 5:

Whereas there has been a proliferation of accidents and fatalities related to truck safety in Ontario; and

Whereas this has caused a great lack of confidence in road safety in Ontario; and

Whereas the government has repeatedly stated its intention to deal decisively and swiftly with truck safety in Ontario; and

Whereas the government has had a truck safety bill on the order paper since February 24, 1997; and

Whereas the Minister of Transportation has attempted to exploit the issue for political purposes, choosing numerous photo opportunities to advance the need for truck safety; and

Whereas the government has failed to address the issue in a meaningful way; and

Whereas the Liberal caucus has stated its desire to cooperate and expeditiously pass legislation ensuring road safety in Ontario;

Be it therefore resolved that this House calls upon the government to bring forward Bill 125 immediately for second and third reading and that the House further calls upon the government to respond to the Target '97 recommendations with legislation so that a full, public debate can occur.

Mr Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief at the opening and will conclude at the end. We offered even today to give up this legislative day to deal with the government's truck legislation. We call upon the government to bring forward a bill as quickly as possible.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I find out within about 30 seconds that I'm up to speak, not so much as a critic, but I understood the Liberal caucus was going to lead off on their own opposition day. Anyway, I will commence.

We need to start this particular debate today on the opposition motion we have before us by recognizing what the problem is. We have a problem in Ontario in so far as there are a number of unsafe vehicles on the road that are endangering the safety of the motoring public. That is not to say every truck out there, every truck driving the highways of Ontario, is unsafe. There certainly are some responsible carriers out there who are trying to do the job properly, but there are some bad apples in the bunch. Part of what we are trying to discuss here today is how you get at those bad apples.

Unfortunately, we've seen too many fatalities on the highways of Ontario. There has been everything from flying truck wheels -- they call it in more esoteric terms wheel separation; we call them flying truck wheels -- to other types of accidents, everything from cars running into the back of trucks to other problems being caused where the motoring public has been put in danger.

What we need to do is recognize what the problem is. That's part of the problem I have in this debate. It seems to me that, first of all, the government, the Minister of Transportation, is trying to approach this problem from a fairly interesting perspective. They are trying to make this out to be some sort of simple problem that could be cured by putting large fines on people who do things wrong or by introducing some magical piece of legislation where all of a sudden, waking up the day after royal assent, the problem would have gone away.

It's not as simple as that. There are a whole host of issues that have to be addressed within the trucking industry in order to make the industry as safe as it can be for the travelling, motoring public.

I think the first thing we have to do is change the culture. One of the things we have to do within the transportation industry, and also within the general public, I would add, is to say we need to change the culture of how we deal with the trucks themselves.

It's rather ironic that not only here in Ontario but across Canada we look at trucks as being basically large cars. The reality is that trucks are not large cars. They are huge shipping containers that are running down our highways at about 120,000 pounds, barrelling down the road at 90 to 100 kilometres an hour. That's a pretty dangerous vehicle to come up on.

It seems to me that one of the things we need to do within the trucking industry and within the general public is to change that whole attitude and to start recognizing that trucks are not large cars, that trucks are shipping containers that weigh about 120,000 pounds and are pretty lethal when involved in an accident. If we were to change some of the attitudinal problems in our approach to the trucks themselves, I think we'd be able to get at part of this problem.

I always find it interesting that we look at rail transportation in this province from a much different perspective than we look at trucks. Could you imagine, to put it bluntly, having a rail industry or an airline industry in this country that was not properly monitored by the provincial and federal governments to make sure they are meeting certain standards when it comes to safety or maintenance? There would be a hue and cry out there.

The people would say, "Why would I want to get on a plane unless I am assured that the government is assuring itself that everything is being done to make this plane safe?" Why would people embark on a train or ship goods on a train unless we knew that the government, either federally or provincially, depending on who has the authority, would assure itself that the trains themselves and the track are as safe as humanly possible within the limitations we have? Nobody.

When it comes to trucks, we have a totally different attitude. We see an 18-wheeler or we see a double trailer-truck coming down the highway and we look at it as being just another car. Well, it's not another car. It's a huge vehicle. It is a transportation vehicle that needs to be treated differently than a car. I think that's one of the first things we have to do: We have to change that attitude.

I'll give you an example, Mr Speaker. You were a member of this House under the former Peterson government, two governments ago. They looked at the whole issue within the industry itself, not just trucking. They looked at the manufacturing industry and the problems we were having in handling chemicals within the workplace. The opposition, being us, the New Democrats, and the unions who were out there trying to make the workplace safer for their members started going after the Peterson government and saying, "What we need to do when it comes to the handling of dangerous goods, chemicals within industry, is to start changing the attitude."

So the Peterson government put in place what was called the WHMIS program. You would remember, Mr Speaker, that what WHMIS did was it trained the workers, the employers and government people in making sure that everybody understood what was dangerous within the workplace and then if something God-forsaken should happen, how to deal with it. By training people and educating people, they started changing attitudes about how we handle dangerous chemicals, how we store them properly and how we transport them.

As a result of that, I would argue that over the last about 10 years now, or maybe a little bit less, that WHMIS has been in place there have been far fewer incidents where people have been injured or killed because of chemicals in the workplace. Why? Because we managed to change the attitude within the workplace.

We managed to get employers, the managers in the workplace and the foremen and whoever runs the companies, to start understanding that you do not treat a container of chemicals the same way you treat a container of water, that they are not the same thing and that we need to make sure there are standards in place and we need to make sure the workers who handle the equipment understand what can be done and how it can be done safely. More importantly, we made sure we have the proper supports within the workplace both to store and to handle and transport those particular chemicals.

As a result of the change in attitude, and I give kudos to the Peterson government for this one, we managed to make a change within the whole problem that we had where we had literally hundreds of workers every month being diseased and some unfortunately killed by the handling of toxic chemicals within the workplace.

It seems to me we have to come at the shipping industry in the same way. We have to get the motoring public to understand and we need to get the industry and the shippers and the drivers and everybody to understand that trucks are not big cars. Trucks are exactly what they are: They are huge shipping vehicles. We need to make sure that we have standards in place and we need to make sure that those standards that are in place are enforceable and reasonable in making sure we make the industry as safe as possible. More importantly, we need to recognize that they are basically huge transport vehicles. I think that's one of the things you have to be able to do.

What are some of the things we can do in order to make our highways safer? What can we do in order to deal with the issue of how we make the trucking industry as safe as we can?

The broad stroke I would say is this: As well as changing the attitude and getting people to understand that trucks are not big cars, we need to start looking at how we make us as a society responsible. We all have a share in this, we all have a stake in this and we all have a responsibility. We need to make sure the government takes its responsibility in making sure that there are proper conditions, that there is proper regulation in place, that there is proper inspection and proper enforcement in place, to make sure the industry does what it can.

We also have to look at the people who produce the goods and who contract the trucking companies to ship the goods. We need to make sure the manufacturers are also held accountable, because that's part of the problem we're having today in the trucking industry. We live in a world of deregulation. We live in a world in which the trucking industry, along with a whole bunch of other industries, has been deregulated. With that deregulation came a price. Yes, it has been cheaper to ship goods, on average, for the manufacturers; no question. But has it necessarily been good for the travelling public?

I would say not, because what has happened is that you have cut-rate operators who come into competition with good shippers who are trying to do their job. You have people in competition with them slashing prices, and to do so, they slash safety. What ends up happening is that they put the motoring public at risk.

One of the things we have to do, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the government's bill that is supposed to be introduced next week, is to take a look at the issue: Are we going to hold the manufacturers responsible? When a manufacturer goes out there and knowingly hires a company that he or she knows may have problems when it comes to their safety rating, will we hold them responsible? I think it is awfully unfair to hold the driver responsible, which seems to be what we are doing in this day and age. We blame the driver, and if there's any other blame to be given, we blame the trucking company.

I'm not saying they are not without some responsibility. What I am saying is that we need to look at the root of the problem. We have to make sure the trucking industry is dealt with in such a way that they can make a sufficient dollar so that we can assure ourselves that we are able to have safer trucks out on our highways, and that costs money.

I guess the basic question is: Are we prepared to pay the price? I think most people in Ontario are fairly reasonable. I think most people are prepared to say, "I would put safety over the cheaper price of shipping." I want to make sure when I drive down the 401 or I go up Highway 11 that I'm not going to meet some 18-wheeler or some 53-foot truck or some double-axle truck on the highway that's unsafe, that just might come apart as I'm going by it or it's coming by me. That's the first thing we need to do.

What's happened up to now to deal with this problem? It's been interesting what has happened over the past two years. I watched the Minister of Transportation get up with great fanfare on a number of occasions to announce measures to deal with the issue of truck safety, but up to now they've just been announcements. We haven't seen anything concrete on the part of the government in bringing forward actual legislation that it is prepared to carry through this House to deal with the broad issues of truck safety.

We've seen the government come in here, the Minister of Transportation, and announce with great fanfare last January, I guess it was, Bill 125. That was a bill that was going to give absolute fines of $50,000. When truck wheels come flying off trucks, we would fine the trucking company and the driver 50,000 bucks for the wheel coming off.

I'm not so sure that's a good idea, to be quite honest. I think there are other ways of coming at the responsibility. But the point is, he introduced that legislation knowing that it was never going to get called to the House, and we caught him on that one. Members of the opposition, both the New Democrats and the Liberals, caught the Minister of Transportation at his own game. Nobody was listening to us at the beginning when we pointed that out.

I remember that Al Palladini came to this House and introduced legislation called Bill 125 with great fanfare, great press opportunities, wonderful photo ops, great articles in the Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun, the Globe and Mail, Global television, City-TV and all the others. It was a great announcement. He was going to finally do something. But he knew he didn't have the support of his House leader.

The Minister of Transportation knew that the House leader had told him: "Don't introduce this bill because I have no intention of calling it, because we have other legislation we want to deal with as the Mike Harris government. We want to deal with the megacity." They wanted to deal with the consolidation of school boards. They wanted to deal with the assessment of taxes in the municipality of Toronto and what will be the greater city of Toronto. They had other things that they wanted to deal with and the minister introduced legislation to the House in order to get a photo op and make it look as if he's doing something.

I understand the pressure put on the minister. I don't want to attack the Minister of Transportation outright because he has done some good things. But I think it's fairly cynical when a government comes in and introduces a bill that it knows will never be called to the House. It's quite interesting where we find ourselves today some three to four months later. The bill has never been called to the -- well, it's been called to the House but we haven't finished --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There was a big fund-raiser in Toronto.

Mr Bisson: I was getting to that point in a second. The point is that this bill has been before this House since January and has yet to be passed into law. I would just say, number one, the Minister of Transportation introduced the legislation knowing that he wasn't going to deal with it and, number two, the minister really had no intention -- I guess the first point is the same as the second. It was good for going out to fund-raisers. The Minister of Transportation can deal with people at fund-raisers fairly well, but when it comes to this legislation he certainly had problems.

He has done some things that I've got to say are a step in the right direction. One of the things that the Minister of Transportation did was carry on some work that was started by my colleague Mr Pouliot when he was the Minister of Transportation, and that's the issue of safety ratings. I think that's a very important first step.

What we need to do, and we did this through the legislation and I understand it might even be fixed up a little bit better in future legislation, is say that we will make a safety rating system whereby anybody in Ontario who has doubts about a particular shipper is able to call up and find out if that shipper is within a particular parameter when it comes to safety. If they're not, automatically they would be pulled off the road. I think that's not a bad way to do it.

I'll tell you, I'm not a big fan of fines. I don't think fining trucking companies in the end is the entire answer. I think there might be the odd exception where you need to do that, where you've got a really bad operator such as we've seen in the past. I forget the name of the company offhand, but there was one particular company in the city of Toronto there for a couple of years that had been having a pretty rotten record. There might be cases where the minister has to move on that because nothing else seems to work.

But I think in most cases the best thing we can do is to turn around and say: "Listen, you have to be able to operate your company within a certain rating when it comes to safety and if you don't do so, you ain't going to have a licence. You're not going to be able to ship in Ontario."

If we go the next step, if we follow that safety rating system, we assure ourselves that shippers who ship with these companies have some sort of -- there should be some sort of financial incentive so that the companies that are the safest have some sort of preferential treatment with the Ministry of Transportation, maybe cheaper licences. I know some of this stuff is being talked about in Target '97, but take a look at how we reward those transport companies who are out there doing the thing right and whose rating systems are impeccable.

We should be making it economically better for them, so that shippers out there use them rather than the people that are more unsafe. We should have a competition to make the system better and have safer trucks rather than having the competition as it is now, where the people who have the worst safety records are the ones with the cheapest shipping prices.

I was talking to one shipping company out of Oshawa a couple of months ago. We were having a chat about the rates to ship goods from the city of Toronto to Montreal. What's interesting to note here is that those bad shippers, the ones that are out there with the trucks that are not in very good shape, that try to plan their runs so they don't run across any Ministry of Transportation inspectors or the OPP, are the ones that are really cutting the price. They're doing the shipping from Toronto to Montreal at about one third less than what is being charged by other shipping companies.

That's what's happening in the market and that's the problem. We need to assure ourselves that the reputable operators out there are not undercut by operators who are operating unsafely, and that's what we need to get to. I don't argue to regulate it that way -- I think we can do that in other ways -- but I think what we need to do is have a carrot-and-stick approach, being able to put the carrot out there rather than just whacking them over the head when they do something wrong.

What are some of the things we need to deal with? We need to look at all the aspects when it comes to shipping. Let's start from the beginning. When it comes to the manufacturing of trailers, we need to assure ourselves that the manufacturers are building trailers to a sufficient standard and that the parts being used to build these trailers are also sufficient. One of the things that I found in talking to operators out there is that some of the replacement parts, and even in some cases some of the parts used in the manufacturing, are substandard and are not of the quality they used to be some years ago.

If we're seeing wheels flying off trucks, rolling off highways and killing people, part of the reason, from what I understand from talking to people in the industry, is that some of the replacement parts that we're using are not to the same quality as they used to be. In order to cut price, in order to be more competitive, they've weakened the materials being used, which has made the equipment -- the hubs on wheels and others -- a lot less sturdy than it used be before.

We need to look at that particular issue. We need to take a look at how we assure ourselves that trailers being produced meet a certain standard and, once they are repaired, that the parts being used in the replacement of the defective parts are to a sufficient standard as well. Whatever we do in legislation or by way of regulation, I think we need to take a look at that issue.

I'll tell you, talking to people who run pulp and paper trucks up Highway 11, it's a big -- I was coming down the highway about two, three weeks ago and one guy lost two wheels and was off on the side of the road. The highway was blocked for about an hour and a half until they were able to tow everything out of the way because of the way the truck ended up stopping. Luckily, nobody was hurt and there was no big accident.

One of the things that ends up happening is that this was a brand-new truck. This was a trailer that had been purchased I think it was in Orillia. I'm not quite sure where it came from -- I'd have to go back and look at my notes -- but it was somewhere in southern Ontario. This particular trailer had just been purchased about a month ago and here it is, it had lost two wheels. There's something wrong here. The guy -- I don't blame him -- was mad as heck. He was saying: "I spent all this money, I spent over $100,000 to buy this trailer, and here I am driving from Timmins to Smooth Rock Falls with a load of chips and two wheels come flying off. What's wrong here?"

That tells me that part of the problem is we need to assure ourselves the manufacturers are living up to a standard when it comes to building these. This particular owner also told me he's had problems with replacement parts. Some of those parts have not been up to standard. We need to protect the owners of the rigs. I see the parliamentary assistant shaking his head in the negative. Oh, it's not you, the parliamentary assistant? You are anyway. That is part of the problem.

We need to assure ourselves that when the trucking operator goes out there to buy a truck, he or she is getting something that is of quality and not something that's going to fall apart and endanger the public. I think that's one of the issues we need to be able to deal with. I understand and I accept that it is easier said than done, but I think we need to move in that direction. We need to be able to protect the people who are going out there purchasing the rigs and make sure they are safe.

One of the other things you have to do also is to assure yourself that when maintenance is being done, the maintenance is being done in such a way that it is up to standard. One of the things that strikes me as interesting is that the Ministry of Transportation -- here's how it works. I own a fleet of trucks. Let's say I'm shipping lumber chips from Timmins up to Smooth Rock Falls. I have four or five trucks and I have a garage in order to take care of them. The Ministry of Transportation will give me the ability to inspect my own trucks.

That might be okay in some cases, but I can certainly tell you, in other cases it ain't a good idea. When the operator is the same person who does the maintenance, there may be some economic benefit to it, but unless it's properly monitored, you can start having some problems in the long run.

If we're going to give the owners that ability to do their own inspections, we have to assure ourselves that the Ministry of Transportation is going in there and making sure that those shops are properly licensed, properly equipped and in fact are doing the work they should be doing to make those trucks safe.

Again, I want to preface, a lot of the operators are doing this quite well. I look at some of the companies out there like Manitoulin and others. They certainly have some credibility when it comes to this area. But with some of the smaller operators, it's a problem. What we need to do is to make sure that the ministry properly inspects those garages and that the work being done on them is actually being done and is being done by certified people.

I was talking to the fellow up in my riding from the Ministry of Transportation who is responsible for that. Given the amount of time he has, being one person, he's lucky to inspect all of these, to get to each one of these garages once a year. That means in a lot of cases these trucks might be being repaired, but they might be repaired badly and the ministry doesn't find out about it for a couple of years, unless they happen to catch you at a roadside inspection.

I think we need to go back to the beginning. We have to say at the beginning, "Let us assure ourselves that the people who are fixing the trucks are doing so and are doing so well." That's making sure that we have qualified mechanics, that we have quality parts and we have good maintenance programs to keep those trucks up to standard.

One of the things we can do that would be really easy -- and I'm not going to get into the whole issue of lick-and-stick stickers. I think most people understand what's happening out there. In some cases an operator goes out there, again, sometimes with the smaller ones, and says, "Jeez, I've got to get my rig out on to the road." He gets himself a sticker from a mechanic -- that's why they call it a lick-and-stick; it hasn't even been inspected -- plop on the tractor-trailer it goes and down the highway goes the truck. In fact, the thing has never really been inspected.

One of the things I'm going to ask the government to do in their legislation would be really simple. If you look at how they deal with maintenance on trains, the actual maintenance log of the train car itself is kept on the car, so when the ministry inspectors federally go and take a look at that particular shipment or container, they can pull out the maintenance log. It's against the law not to have it there. They can pull out the maintenance log. They know who's worked on it, when it was worked on, who did what, what was replaced, when it was done, what were the parts used.

It's a very non-bureaucratic way of doing it, and if there is any problem, immediately they can tell if something has gone wrong, if something has not been properly done.

Why don't we take the same approach when we deal with trucks? When it comes to trucks, rather than trying to figure out, "Is this an actual valid sticker? Has the maintenance really been done? Shall I call the shop? Can you find the mechanic? Has it been done?" why don't we put the maintenance logs right on the trailer? That way, when the Ministry of Transportation pulls it over off the road, the Ministry of Transportation inspector or the OPP officer can pull the maintenance log out of the pouch that's on the trailer and say, "Indeed this trailer has been properly maintained."

That's part of the problem we have, because a lot of people don't recognize that the owner-operator of the truck often doesn't even know what trailer he's going to be pulling the next day, or she if it happens to be a female driver. The guy takes his rig, he drives down to the yard, he's assigned a trailer and he pulls that trailer from Windsor to Toronto or from Toronto to Montreal or Toronto to Timmins.

Often you're not pulling the same trailers, and the truck operator has no way of knowing if the maintenance has been properly done, other than doing a walkabout around the truck and doing the inspection, which I'll get to a little bit later. But one thing that could be done really easily is, I could walk up to the truck, as the driver, I could pick up the log and find out, "Has this thing ever been maintained?" and if it has not been maintained, I don't take it. That's one of the things you can do.

You can increase the frequency when it comes to maintenance. That's something that's already happening now. It wouldn't cost any money. With the reputable shippers out there, they don't just maintain their trailers once a year. You've got people out there who understand that if you maintain vehicles properly, both the rigs and the trailers, and you do it on a frequent basis, every three months or so, and in cases of trucks a little bit more frequently, it's cheaper when it comes to costs because you're not letting things break down. You're better off to fix it before it becomes a huge problem.

One of the things we can look at is increasing the frequency of actual maintenance inspections on the part of mechanics to the rigs and to the trucks themselves. If we were to post that within the maintenance log that I talked about putting on the trailer, we'd have a way of assuring ourselves that that's actually been done. That's one of the things we can do and it wouldn't cost a lot of money. That's one of the things we need to say here. That's one of the things we can do in order to try to make the trucks a little bit safer on the highway.

One of the other things we can do is make sure that we properly train truck drivers to do the inspections. Again, some truck drivers, and I would argue probably a majority, have been in the industry for a long time and know their job and try to do it well. But one of the problems I'm told by truck drivers is that often the fellow or the company who owns the truck is more interested in seeing that thing drive down the highway than he is in seeing the guy walk around the truck to do the inspection.

There's a quick runabout in the middle of the night with a flashlight; he jumps in the truck and down the highway he goes. But if we were to take the time and make sure that proper pre-trip inspections were done -- and we can put that in legislation -- and number two, if we properly trained drivers to be able to do those trip inspections, we would be able to get at part of the problem. Again, it won't fix all of the problem, but there are little bits and pieces that add up to being able to reduce a lot of the problems we have with flying truck wheels and other things within the industry.

I understand part of this is going to be responded to by the bill from the Minister of Transportation, and I look forward to seeing that bill. If that's in there, I think that's a good idea. But one of the things we can do is assure ourselves that, number one, the truck drivers are properly trained when it comes to doing the trip inspections. I'm not saying, "I'm ABC Trucking and I'm going to train my own employees." No, no, that's not good enough. What you have to do is to make sure that the truck drivers are properly trained by certified trainers and not just by the owner-operators themselves. We need to make sure that's done properly.

The other thing we need to do is to look at a graduated driver's licence system for trucks. That's not a bad idea. It has been done with vehicles. My eldest daughter when she turned 16, and my youngest one when she turned 16, had to go through a graduated system to get their licence. Again, that's not a bad idea. We should be doing that with truck drivers.

I was standing at Malette waferboard the other day, talking to the drivers who were coming into the plant to pick up loads. They were bringing them pretty well anywhere in Ontario and the northern United States. That's one of the things some of the drivers were saying, that some of the jockeys they've got coming in behind some of these wheels have been in the business for not a long time and they think the faster you go, the more money you're going to make. Well, not necessarily so.

The faster you go the more wear and tear you're going to put on your truck, because the conditions of our highways are such that it's the shaking and the vibrating and the bumping you get on the truck that eventually makes wheels fly off trucks.

One of the things we need to do is to make sure that we properly train drivers when it comes to driving. We should first, at the very least, have a graduated driver's licence system for truck operators. Then one of the other things we should do is make sure there are mandatory driving schools that are certified.

I know this is a big leap for a lot of people, and even some truck drivers may have some problems with it, but I think you have to start changing the attitude within the trucking industry. You've got to start saying to them, "Listen, these are not big cars; these are huge transportation vehicles that weigh 120,000 pounds that are rolling down the highway at 90 kilometres, 110 kilometres an hour," and if you hit one, God forbid, you're not going to survive.

We certainly take our time to properly regulate the airline industry, we do it within the rail industry, and we should do so within the trucking industry. In the end, who is left better? First of all, the public ends up with a safer industry as far as what it means to our highways and what it means to motorists, but it makes it easier for drivers and it also makes it easier in some ways for the industry itself. At the very least, we should be able to look at how we put in place mandatory truck driver programs where the truck drivers have to go through a licensed school or whatever it might be to be able to get their licence, and then they get their licence on a graduated system.

You can't put that in all of a sudden, I understand that -- you'd have to grandfather those people who are there now -- but certainly you can start working towards that in the future.

That's something that wouldn't cost the government a lot of money that in the end would make it better for everybody around -- the shipper, because if the shipper has a good driver, he makes money, and a good driver is not driving down at 120 kilometres an hour; it's the driver who does proper trip inspections, drives his rig with care, drives it within the speed limits and doesn't do things he shouldn't be doing when it comes to driving those trucks, and recognizes when there's a problem, pulls over and gets it fixed and doesn't wait until a truck wheel flies