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

June 11, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L086 - Tue 11 Jun 1996 / Mar 11 Jun 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

PORT CREDIT RIVERFEST

JOB CREATION

NON-PROFIT HOUSING COOPERATIVES

HERSHEY CANADA YOUTH TRACK AND FIELD MEET

MINISTERIAL PERFORMANCE

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL OFFICES

EVENTS IN BOWMANVILLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CROWN FOUNDATIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

OVERTIME PAYMENTS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

AGRICORP

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY STAFF

HOUSING CONSULTANTS

GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE

AGRICORP

HYDRO RATES

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

CHILD CARE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

GASOLINE PRICES

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

DRUG MARKETING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

EDUCATION FINANCING

FONDS PROPRES POUR ÉCOLES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CROWN FOUNDATIONS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES FONDATIONS DE LA COURONNE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (EXPENSES ALLOWANCES), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INDEMNITÉS POUR DÉPENSES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

WORKFARE

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'd like to congratulate the Attorney General on yesterday's victims' rights announcement. An automated notification system is a significant step towards ensuring that people who have suffered at the hands of criminals are able to enjoy life without constant fear of reprisal. The onus of such a system, however, should be on the justice system and not the victim.

Yet it is unfortunate that it has taken more than two years to identify meaningful initiatives for the funds accumulated through the victim fine surcharge. Each day in this province the number of victims increases. Each day the need grows for additional assistance, support and understanding.

Today we designate June 11 as the Annual Day of Commemoration for Victims of Crime. In doing so, we recognize the adversities, the challenges, the constant emotional struggles that victims in this province must endure.

We as a society must work together to battle crime: to protect our neighbourhoods and individual freedoms. This is a day we honour the courage and perseverance of all victims in Ontario and indeed throughout the world.

However, a day of commemoration is not enough to make up for the trauma the victims have tolerated. We must seek out innovative, meaningful and substantive ways of dealing with victims' rights. We must do all we can to lessen the hardships of victims. Let this day not be merely lip-service and let us never forget our obligation to victims of crime.

SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today I want to congratulate the Attawapiskat First Nation on the grand opening of the water and sewer sanitation system, as well as the Vezina Secondary School technology wing, in Attawapiskat on June 3.

The new water and sewer sanitation system will provide the long-awaited provision for running water in this community, greatly improving the quality of life. This sewage system will serve the community of 1,500 residents and 232 households with a dependable source of potable water and reliable disposal of sewage. The opening of the Vezina Secondary School technology wing will bring vital technology programs to students in this area.

Financed through federal, provincial and first nation resources, the two projects represent $18.4 million worth of improvements to infrastructure and education. These projects were, in part, funded by the NDP government. The water and sewage system received funds from the Ontario home retrofit program which provided indoor hookups to the water and sewer lines.

When I first ran for office back in 1987 for Cochrane North, there was no water or sewage system in Attawapiskat. Now almost every house is serviced.

Clean water is a basic right and my government can be proud of this accomplishment, as can the community of Attawapiskat. I want to also congratulate Chief Ignace Gull and the band council over the last couple of years for pushing very hard to have these projects completed.

PORT CREDIT RIVERFEST

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This weekend, from June 14 to 16, the village of Port Credit will celebrate our ninth annual Riverfest, Port Credit's festival by the Credit River.

This event was begun by the Port Credit Business Association as a family-oriented community festival to bring together local residents and make them aware of the wonderful variety of stores, services and restaurants Port Credit has to offer.

The festival has grown into a major carnival, which includes a midway, children's village, petting zoo, clowns, wagon rides, live entertainment, giant sidewalk sale, pancake breakfasts, beer garden, bake sale, baseball tournament, bed races and a tug of war. Best of all, Riverfest is free.

The Port Credit Business Association, which continues to organize the event, works closely with Happyland shows and a variety of community groups. Congratulations to Syd Silver, the Riverfest chair, and the members of the organizing committee who represent the Credit Valley Lions, Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, Credit Valley Civitans, Mississauga Centennial Civitans, St John Ambulance, St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, the Boys and Girls Club of Peel, Peel Regional Police and the Family Awareness Centre, as well as the Port Credit Business Association.

We invite people from around the Golden Horseshoe to join us for a fun-filled weekend at Riverfest. Discover Port Credit, Mississauga's dynamic village on the lake.

JOB CREATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): One thing that is becoming painfully clear to many graduating students and unemployed people in this province is that despite the tax cut the government's plan to create over 725,000 jobs simply won't happen. They won't even come close.

The latest unemployment numbers reveal that unemployment is increasing. The latest social assistance numbers are also increasing, and many students entering the workforce, looking to find either full-time or summer employment, are finding that hope and opportunities are fading.

This is the real deficit -- the jobs deficit.

The Harris government's credibility rests upon its commitment to create 725,000 jobs by the end of its mandate. Yet with every projection, even when you factor in the tax cut, the numbers show this government will fall some 300,000 jobs short of reaching its jobs target.

This government should be taking the lead in job creation, putting forth a strategy which is designed to put young people back to work, while helping those on social assistance find the right skills necessary to find a permanent job. Until they do so, the real deficit -- the jobs deficit -- will continue to grow and any economic recovery will be hampered.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING COOPERATIVES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This Conservative government launches yet another attack on families and communities by its abandonment -- no, its sabotage -- of cooperative housing here in the province of Ontario.

Across this province communities have worked together in the spirit of cooperativism and built homes for themselves and their neighbours and redesigned neighbourhoods and communities to provide safe and affordable places in which their children can grow up.

In Welland alone we have as many as 300 families living in cooperative housing. We have cooperative housing developments that now have been investing in their homes for 17 and 18 years. Yet this government, these Tories who have no interest whatsoever in the welfare of those same children and families and the sustenance of that same level of affordable housing have now abandoned -- no, I say sabotaged, because we know what their goal is. Their goal is to see the privatization of cooperative housing, just as their goal is to see the privatization of Ontario Hydro, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, education and health care.

Indeed we are witnessing an attack on the efforts of young women and men and their children as they worked and invested in their homes, as they built their communities. They, I tell you, are not going to tolerate this sort of attack. They are going to fight back and ensure, along with hundreds of thousands of other Ontarians, that this government never sees the light of day of a second mandate and doesn't persist long enough to continue its destruction of the assets of --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

HERSHEY CANADA YOUTH TRACK AND FIELD MEET

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The sixth annual Hershey Canada youth track and field meet took place in Smiths Falls on Saturday, June 8. Over 630 participants aged nine to 14 took

part in the meet aimed at promoting a winning attitude and healthy lifestyle.

This year marks the first time that Ontario participants will be eligible to move on to Hershey's track and field youth program's first-ever North American final. Between five and 25 participants from Ontario will be flown to Hershey, Pennsylvania, for the national final weekend, as thousands of American participants have done since the meet began in 1975.

Ontario participants will be selected from four meets being held this year in Carleton Place, Nepean, Kingston and of course the one in Smiths Falls, the home of Hershey Canada. These participants will help make up the 60-member team to represent region 6, which includes several New England states, one of eight regions participating in the national finals.

I would like to thank Wilf Stephan and Pat Kilgore from the Smiths Falls plant, and the entire Hershey corporation for their dedicated support to youth programs both in Smiths Falls and across North America. I would also like to personally thank all participants, volunteers and sponsors for making Saturday's meet another huge success, especially Jamie Schoular.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

MINISTERIAL PERFORMANCE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Given all their failures, we think some ministers ought to be put in summer schools.

What better example to teach our children than the image of education minister John Snobelen having to repeat his freshman year because he failed to meet the demands of the curriculum? Snobelen receives an F because he slashed school board budgets by $400 million, without giving them the necessary tools to protect the classroom.

Snobelen could be joined by Dave Tsubouchi, who deserves an F for telling welfare recipients to barter for tuna and for approving a welfare regulation that threw thousands of disabled people off welfare.

An F for Jim Wilson for cutting health care by $1.3 billion and for instituting user fees on the poor and seniors in this province to help recoup some of their own mismanagement.

Al Palladini has failed to maintain our highway infrastructure, cutting transportation funding at a time when our roads are in rapid deterioration.

Al Leach has failed to inform tenants of his true intentions with respect to rent control, so now they live in constant fear of losing their very basic rights.

Charles Harnick and Bob Runciman have failed to protect our justice system and our streets, cutting crown prosecutors and the size of local police forces, and proposing to stop prosecuting certain crimes like break-and-entry.

The entire Tory --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL OFFICES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): To the Minister of Transportation and the rest of this assembly I would like to report that, as the minister knows, a decision has been made by his government, namely, by the Minister of Transportation, to close down the travel point offices of the Ministry of Transportation throughout all of Ontario and those small communities who frankly have just those offices in many cases to be able to get services from the Ministry of Transportation and others.

For communities like Iroquois Falls, Smooth Rock Falls, Matheson and Englehart, it means those people, in order to get drivers' tests, will not be able to get them in their communities any more and will have to go outwards to places like Timmins and Cochrane to get them.

I want to remind the Minister of Transportation, it was a Tory government in the 1970s that in its wisdom said that you had to open these offices so that people didn't have to travel to communities like Timmins and Cochrane to get those services and that it made perfectly good sense back in the 1970s to do that.

Minister, you know and I know and the community knows there's not a lot of money to be saved by doing this. I ask the minister very simply to make sure that in making this decision they take into account what happens with those communities, because frankly, they'll be left high and dry and I don't think anybody's best served.

I also want to tell you, Minister, that the community of Iroquois Falls, through Mayor Graham and his council, is prepared to work with you to find solutions that will keep those services in the community of Iroquois Falls and even looking at the possibility of sharing some of the rent or giving up the rent in its entirety in order to offset your costs. Minister, give a care about Iroquois Falls, give a care about Matheson and let's keep those offices open.

EVENTS IN BOWMANVILLE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a privilege to rise today to recognize an important historic event in my riding of Durham East. On June 2, I had the honour of attending the official opening of the Rotary park and dedication of the Colville Memorial Clock Tower in Bowmanville.

The Colville Memorial Clock Tower was erected in remembrance of three brothers: William, age 25, Alexander, age 28, and John Colville, age 24, from Bowmanville. The Colville brothers were killed in action while serving as pilots overseas in the Royal Canadian Air Force during the Second World War. The memorial clock tower is dedicated to their memory.

This monument is a lasting tribute to the Colville brothers. It is also a reminder that many members of our community unselfishly went off to the war to give all Canadians a future in our country.

Members of the Legion, cadets and former RCAF members from across Ontario attended the ceremony. During the dedication, a fly-past by three historic Harvard aircraft took place.

The Rotary park site was first developed in 1931 as a park and was used for carnivals and special events until 1948, when an arena was built on the site, until 1988. The park was the heart of Bowmanville and its sporting community. In 1991, I was a local councillor for this area and worked with members of the community to develop this area into a park to meet new community needs. On June 2, 1996, the Rotary park was officially opened. It's wonderful to witness the dream come true -- like the Rotary motto, "Service above self."

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CROWN FOUNDATIONS

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Later today, I'll be introducing legislation to encourage the financial support of public institutions by individuals and the private sector through the establishment of crown foundations.

The Crown Foundations Act, 1996, will allow hospitals, libraries, cultural organizations and certain other public institutions which may qualify to establish crown foundations. It delivers on our budget commitment to encourage charitable donations to public institutions and to make it easier for these organizations to solicit donations. This bill allows the establishment of crown foundations by public hospitals, public libraries, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, the Ontario Arts Council, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Botanical Gardens.

Certain other public institutions may also qualify, such as the National Ballet of Canada, the Canadian Opera Company, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, the Shaw Festival and the Stratford Festival.

I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of many of the hospital and cultural institution representatives with us today, and I would like to thank them for their support.

Through this legislation, donations to these foundations will now receive the same treatment as donations to universities, which already have crown foundation status. Currently, when a taxpayer donates to these organizations, they can claim a credit of up to 50% of their income for each year. People who donate more than 50% of their income are not able to claim the full amount of the donation as a tax credit. However, when a taxpayer donates to the crown, the entire amount is eligible for a tax credit.

Our budget announcement on crown foundations was enthusiastically received. The response we heard was that this was the right direction to spur new ways of obtaining public support and to give donors a sense of ownership.

I would like to thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, Isabel Bassett, who held extensive consultations on ways to make it easier for public institutions to solicit charitable donations. This bill is based on Ms Bassett's findings, and I want to thank her for her good work and efforts.

As the government restructures, we are giving public institutions another tool to attract gifts and donations from individuals and the private sector. The Crown Foundations Act, 1996, encourages increased private sector support of these public institutions and the worthwhile services they provide to Ontarians.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the announcement today, and I too welcome the volunteers in the gallery. I think they represent some of the very finest that Ontario has to offer and the organizations they represent do a terrific job for Ontario. I appreciate that they will need help in the years ahead.

I look at the government's plans on capital spending in the area of culture and citizenship, and I see that the government plans to cut its spending from $42 million to $6 million, so those organizations will need all the assistance that's possible.

The Ministry of Health is cutting its capital spending from $249 million two years ago to $167 million. The Ministry of Education and Training cut its capital spending from $420 million to $222 million. So the capital spending has been cut dramatically. The government already has announced that it plans to cut an additional $500 million a year from now.

As I say, these organizations, the hospitals, the arts community, the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario, all of them doing fine work, do indeed require all the assistance that we can provide. This will be helpful, I don't doubt it. But Ontario is changing very dramatically, where our organizations are going to be, and going to have to be, extremely aggressive about seeking charitable donations.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Competing.

Mr Phillips: "Competing," my colleague said. They are competing, because you now have given these organizations the same opportunity as universities and colleges, and universities and colleges are going to be very much competing for these dollars.

I was once chairman of a foundation, the Scarborough General Hospital Foundation. I have some appreciation of the challenges of raising money. But I guarantee you that these organizations are all going to be competing for a very limited charitable dollar out there. This will help them; they'll be able to compete better. But the pot is not going to suddenly get dramatically larger.

The government has cut, as you can see, the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation from $42 million to $6 million; an incredible cut. The Ministry of Health is cut from $249 million to $167 million, with similar cuts planned next year, already announced, of $500 million. So we are looking at an Ontario where it's been decided that some of these organizations that historically have been regarded as fundamental will need their funding from charitable donations.

The other thing the government has decided is that an increasing amount of its revenue will come from gambling. We see in the budget -- and I mention this just because we are heading down a different track in Ontario -- two years ago, the province raised about $600 million from gambling; now it's $1.3 billion, more than doubled, a dramatic increase, with 50 new mini-casinos opening up in the province. We are funding our services that historically we have said we will provide much of the funding for from all of us -- now it will come from gambling and from charity.

Perhaps that's the route we want to go, but it is happening because the government has decided to implement a 30% cut in taxes. We're seeing the implications of that for these organizations that are here today to support this move, and I understand why: because it will be helpful to them in raising money. But we are now saying to some of the organizations, "You head out and raise your money by going after charity," and that's a limited number.

Thank goodness we've got in Ontario organizations and companies and individuals who are prepared to donate significantly to charitable organizations, but increasingly we're looking to them and we're looking to people who gamble. I absolutely guarantee you that three and four years from now we will have a significant problem with gamblers in the province. You cannot raise now $1.3 billion, up from $600 million, and not expect to create some problems.

On today's announcement, certainly we will support this proposal, certainly we'll help our hospitals and many of our cultural organizations, but it is in my opinion a metaphor for the direction this province is heading in. I think we're going to find in two or three years from now people not all that pleased with the direction.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I agree with most of what my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said, which I used to do occasionally even when he was on the opposite side. I actually welcome this announcement with some cautions to put forth to members of the assembly.

When we were in government we established foundations in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in an attempt to get some money into that sector, so it would be passing strange for us to be opposed to the expansion of this to these other sectors -- not that contradictions are unknown in this place. I simply say to the Minister of Finance that he's not going to fool anybody if he thinks he can stand in his place and pretend that by moving towards foundations and allowing people to write off 100% of their income for the equivalent donation to these foundations, he has somehow made a commitment to the funding of these institutions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I was looking through the list at some of the cuts that have been announced over the next little while, the first one I came to of course was hospitals, where they've announced a $1.3-billion cut in the next three years. That's a lot of foundation money to take the place of that $1.3 billion. We know it won't happen. Libraries, $10.6 million -- proportionally, that's a huge cut. It's about 20% of funding to libraries, and I'm not sure what a foundation does for a library that doesn't exist any more because of the cuts.

When this government was picking on the ministries where they would make the biggest cuts, they knew what they were doing. They knew which ministers would roll over and do as they wished, including the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation at the cabinet table and the Minister of Natural Resources at the cabinet table. They knew who would roll over and not object to the very severe budget cuts in some particular ministries. The Ontario Arts Council, a $12.1-million cut; the Royal Ontario Museum, $2.1 million; the Art Gallery of Ontario, $1.2 million; the Ontario Science Centre, $700,000; the Royal Botanical Gardens, $175,000. That's of course not an all-inclusive list.

While the minister wants to put a good spin on this, as I said, I don't object to the establishment of these foundations as long as he's not pretending that it's more than that, as long as he's not trying to pretend that this will replace the very severe funding cuts that have occurred to many of those same institutions. That simply won't work.

While I too appreciate the presence in the gallery of some very important people to the life of this province, I suspect that as time goes by, while they will appreciate this, and I do too, they won't be fooled by the very substantial cuts that are taking place by this government. You cannot talk about building a better Ontario while you go about dismantling it at the same time. People are not going to be fooled by that.

The health of a province is not simply in the amount of revenues or the amount of debt it has, it's also in the quality of life in the province. That's where many of us

part company with this government. You feel you can cut whatever you like simply to feed that insatiable appetite for the tax cut that you and your good friends have. That's what at the bottom of every single cut that's taken place in public services: the tax cut. It's got nothing to do with the deficit, absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. If you were preoccupied with the deficit --

Hon Mr Eves: You increased the debt from $32 million to $100 million.

Mr Laughren: Don't give me that hooey. If the Minister of Finance cared a jot about the deficit he would not be doing the tax cut. If you were serious about the deficit, you wouldn't be doing the tax cut, and you know that. That's what the rating agencies are telling you. That's what thoughtful people in this province are saying. This government cannot possibly be serious about the deficit when they take that amount out of revenues in the form of tax cuts. You're not fooling anybody as to who's getting the benefit of that tax cut either.

As I said at the beginning, I don't disagree with the extension of foundation status for these institutions. Simply stop trying to kid the troops.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As you know, transit integration was one of the recommendations contained in the Golden task force, and quite clearly the effective operation of the TTC is one of the keys to any integration plan.

Yesterday your colleague the Minister of Transportation said the Toronto Transit Commission was "the worst transit system in the country." I ask you, is that the case? Does the Minister of Transportation know what he's talking about? Is the TTC the worst transit system in the country?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): My understanding is that this morning my colleague and good friend retracted or corrected his statements of yesterday, and I think the statistics on the TTC speak for themselves.

Mrs McLeod: I'm not surprised that the Minister of Transportation tried to soften his statement a little bit, take his foot somewhat out of his mouth, because I don't think the minister had any evidence at all that there was rampant waste in the TTC. I think he was saying whatever came into his mind at the moment to defend a bad decision to gut the funding of the TTC.

It was equally clear that your colleague the Minister of Transportation, making bad decisions, gutting TTC funding, had absolutely no idea about the economic impact of the decision he was making. You may be aware that I asked the Minister of Transportation yesterday how many jobs would be created by the completion of the Sheppard subway project. He had no idea and made a guess of some 2,000 jobs.

As a Toronto member in the cabinet, as the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and hopefully concerned about its economic growth in future, why didn't you tell the Minister of Transportation that this project would create some 43,700 direct and indirect jobs? Why didn't you let him know how important this project was to the future of Metro Toronto and the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mr Leach: My colleague knows how important this project is and that's why we're funding it to the tune of $511 million. But I think my colleague is also correct that in any organization with close to 10,000 employees and a budget of close to $1 billion, there are efficiencies that can be made at any time. I know that the staff of the TTC are working on those efficiencies. Every organization should continue to strive to improve itself, as the TTC does on a continuing basis.

Mrs McLeod: I'm sure you're aware that as we speak in the House today, Metro is deciding the fate of the Sheppard subway. They are not going to be facing decisions related to finding some efficiencies in what your colleague has described as the worst transit system in the country. They are facing a decision forced on them by the fact that your government has cut $117 million from the Sheppard subway project and has cut another $100 million from their repair budget.

You are in a position to know the kind of decision facing Metro this afternoon. You know your government has forced them into an impossible kind of decision where they have to choose between expansion that they believe is needed and the necessity of having a well-maintained system for the safety of the public who ride that system.

You know there are some 43,000-plus jobs at stake here. I'm sure you are aware that the unemployment level in Metro has already increased from 8.9% to 9.5% in the last year alone. I'm sure you must be aware that this cut is incredibly shortsighted, that Metro Toronto needs the subway expansion because it needs the economic development and the jobs that would come with that, and it most definitely needs those 43,000 jobs that would come with that Sheppard subway construction and follow from that.

Minister, will you jump on that subway right now? Will you go down to Metro Hall? Will you tell them that your colleague the Minister of Transportation has made a mistake, that he was wrong to gut the funding for the TTC capital and repair budget? Will you do what you can at this last minute to save the Sheppard subway and all the jobs that project means?

Hon Mr Leach: There's absolutely no need for me to make that trip, because this government is committed to the building of the Sheppard subway. We are providing $511 million in capital funds, which we think is sufficient to cover our share. We are also committed to provide 75% funding for the state of good repair. I've talked to the TTC staff personally about it. I know it can be done. I know, with the expertise they have in that organization, they will strive to meet the challenges that face them with the funding constraints we have.

But we are committed to the Sheppard subway, and the jobs the member across refers to will be there and will be carried out, and the development that's going to take place in North York will be there and will be carried out.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question to the Solicitor General. There is a new pattern of law enforcement in Ontario since Robert Runciman took over as the top cop and the chief jailer. Within the first 10 months of his administration, there has been a more violent and aggressive tone to how our law enforcement officials have acted in this province. From Ipperwash to the riot squad activities at Queen's Park to the recent Elgin-Middlesex beatings of our young offenders, you have established a new standard of law enforcement behaviour.

There are yet many unanswered questions as to what went on at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, and the reason for this is that you have not been totally forthcoming with all the information you have in your possession.

I have a copy of the medical records of one of the young offenders who was transferred to that institution on March 1, and not until March 6 was that young offender seen by a nurse. It would appear that the officials there at that centre had denied those young people medical attention.

It is very important that the minister release the second part of the Ontario child advocate report so the people of Ontario have the complete picture as to what went on at that detention centre on March 1. Minister, would you release that report?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): With respect to the way the member led into that question, I think most Ontarians would find it offensive in terms of reaching conclusions related to both the Ipperwash situation and the Elgin-Middlesex questions. There certainly are very serious allegations surrounding both those incidents, but to suggest they are a fait accompli, he's already found these people guilty, and I think most well-meaning Ontarians would find that kind of conclusion offensive.

With respect to the question surrounding the medical treatment or lack thereof, I indicated on a number of occasions that there is indeed going to be a thorough investigation of the treatment of young offenders to determine if those allegations are true. If that is the case, I think we will see, at the end of the day, charges laid. There is a criminal investigation under way, there is an internal investigation under way in terms of how the ministry responded throughout all of this process, and I think the actions taken are appropriate.

Mr Ramsay: That really has nothing to do with releasing the report, and we in the Legislature and the people of Ontario ask for that immediately.

Yesterday, one of the mothers of one of the young offenders involved in that incident said in a radio interview that she had phoned your office, and I quote, "many, many times, begging for help because I knew of all the abuse that my son and others were taking."

Minister, I know, because I've been in your situation as the Minister of Correctional Services, that when a personal staffer receives such a call, the first thing that happens is that the staffer basically warns the minister that something serious is afoot in his ministry. Do you still stand in your place today and deny that you knew of that incident; when young offenders were beaten at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre on March 1, that you didn't know until the end of May of this year?

Hon Mr Runciman: I guess this is a back-door suggestion that I lied, and I think, hopefully anyway, the member knows me better than that. He may not always agree with me, but I think he knows that I am an honest person. Certainly when I have indicated that I was not aware of these matters until last week with respect to the allegations related to maltreatment of young offenders, that's the truth and nothing but the truth.

With respect to the suggestion by a mother that she made numerous calls related to treatment of her child, I want to say that we have searched our logs with respect to calls and there were significant numbers of calls. The member will remember this was during a labour dispute and we were dealing with enormous numbers of calls. We had one recorded call logged with respect to concern about treatment of young offenders following the Bluewater incident and the response from the parent in that particular situation was satisfaction with the response from the ministry team.

Mr Ramsay: Today I'll have to accept the minister's word on that. It only begs the question then that there is gross incompetence in your running of that ministry if you did not know for that length of time about an incident that serious.

I want to return to the events of last weekend at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. The minister said that his officials were there gathering information as part of his own investigation. This, I'd like to add, is while the police investigation is ongoing.

Minister, I have a copy of a letter that you sent to Chief O'Grady back in April 1993 in regard to the famous John Piper affair. At that time, you were very concerned that John Piper entered his office over the weekend to remove some files while there was a police investigation ongoing and you stated in your letter that you were very concerned about the potential for obstruction of justice.

Do you not think that authorizing some of the very same people who were involved in this incident to be going through the records over the weekend constitutes a conflict? If this is not total, gross incompetence, wouldn't this type of action during a police investigation constitute an obstruction of justice?

Hon Mr Runciman: I haven't changed my views with respect to the position I took related to the Piper investigation: I felt that was inappropriate. I indicated yesterday that I share the concerns of the member from London who raised these allegations in the House yesterday. Today I've asked the Attorney General to assign a senior legal counsel to assist in the internal investigation to ensure that all of these matters are looked at and thoroughly investigated.

There's some irony in the member for Timiskaming raising this issue, and I think he may have something of a short memory. I want to read from a 1988 column by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun:

"Corrections Minister David Ramsay said yesterday he's dissatisfied with the way his ministry originally handled serious allegations of sexual harassment against senior ministry bureaucrats." I'm condensing this. "Ramsay said he plans to issue another directive stipulating his office should be notified in writing whenever such allegations are received through the deputy minister's office or the ministry's human resources branch."

I think it's quite ironic that this member is rising in the House today to question my competence, when he had more serious allegations with respect to advice given to the deputy's office which he was not made aware of.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question too is to the Solicitor General. I think, given what's just gone on, it's important for us to review the facts surrounding this whole issue at Bluewater and at Elgin-Middlesex.

On February 29, 52 youths were transferred out of Bluewater following the riot; 40 of those were transferred to Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, where they allege they were subjected to threats and physical assaults. On March 4, the child and family advocate who was investigating the incident at Bluewater informed your acting deputy minister about those allegations and about her concerns. According to her report, the young people had been prodded, struck, kicked, and there had been resulting injuries.

On April 11, 1996, a correctional officer sent a letter to the superintendent at Elgin-Middlesex alleging that assaults had occurred and referring to staff fears about retaliation if those allegations were made public. Other staff reinforced both those allegations and the concerns which made staff hesitant to report at the press conference that OPSEU held last Friday.

Your ministry's protocol requires that management call in police to investigate whenever there is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing, and they specify particularly in the case of physical assaults. Calling in the child and family advocate does not relieve the ministry staff of that obligation. It is not an alternative or a substitution for calling in the police.

Minister, I ask you very directly: First, why didn't the superintendent at EMDC contact the London police on April 11, as he was required by policy to do? Second, why didn't your acting deputy minister contact the London police on March 4, as he also is required by policy to do? Third, why did your ministry wait until May 31 to ask the police to investigate?

Hon Mr Runciman: I've been over this ground but I will reiterate what occurred. The child advocate did discuss her concerns with the acting deputy minister. Also, we have to put this in the context that there was an investigation under way by the OPP. In fact, the advocate had discussed her concerns with the OPP and subsequent to that discussed them with the ADM, who encouraged her to pursue a very thorough, in-depth investigation of her concerns, which she did.

I think the member is forgetting there was an OPP investigation. There are certainly questions that can arise now about that particular investigation, but to suggest that the procedure wasn't followed with respect to an investigation denies the fact that there was an investigation under way at the point that she initiated her own investigation.

Mrs Boyd: The minister is quite aware that the events we're talking about occurred within the jurisdiction of the London police, not the OPP. That is not a sufficient answer to why the police in whose jurisdiction these allegations took place were not called. We need a further explanation, particularly about the acting deputy minister's role in this whole incident.

Deputy ministers, and by extension acting deputy ministers, are jointly responsible to the secretary of cabinet and to the Premier. They report directly to those two individuals. I ask you, Minister, did the acting deputy minister communicate with the secretary of cabinet or anyone in her office to report this incident at any time prior to May 31, and did he communicate with anyone in the Premier's office?

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not aware that any communication of that nature occurred.

Mrs Boyd: That definitely speaks to what is going on in terms of the chain of command, in terms of people following what the procedures are. These are very serious allegations of the beating of young people within the care of the ministry. We've had too many examples in the past of people within the institutional care of this government being treated in a way that is not appropriate.

It's extremely difficult for all of us to accept that you are content, first of all, that your acting deputy minister did not communicate with you; that you seem content that your acting deputy minister did not report, as is required by protocol, to his direct superiors, the cabinet secretary and the Premier; and that you seem quite content that all of this was allowed to slide for three months while these young people continued in the care of your ministry and continued to be in the same facility where these allegations occurred.

Minister, I ask you again -- you're the one who's responsible -- can you explain to us how this could have happened?

Hon Mr Runciman: There's three points the member raises. She suggests I'm content with the failure of the reporting protocol, and I've indicated pretty clearly, I think, that I am not happy with it at all, and certainly this is part of the internal investigation, to determine what happened with respect to a breakdown in the requirements of that protocol.

She also indicates that we allowed this to slide for three months, which again is totally inaccurate. The child advocate was on the scene on a regular basis and has indicated to me personally that she was quite satisfied with the level of safety for the young offenders in the facility during that period of time. The member's own office contacted the advocate yesterday with respect to those kinds of questions, and she didn't want to accept the answer from the child advocate.

There's no question that there are serious concerns, serious allegations around this. We have the London police in looking at the criminal allegations. We have an internal investigation headed by Inspector Ken Christopherson, who is now going to be assisted by senior legal counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General to look at all these areas, including the issues raised in this House yesterday.

The Speaker: New question. To what minister, the member for London Centre?

Mrs Boyd: To the same minister, Mr Speaker.

You are quite correct that you encouraged me to talk to the child and family advocate, and I did so. I certainly got a very different message than you're suggesting. However, let that be as it may.

When you first spoke to the House, you talked about having every confidence that the ministry had acted appropriately and had handled the allegations in a professional manner. Yesterday, when you were talking to the press after the House, you said, "I think the original concerns were addressed appropriately, but the actions that have been raised with respect to other officials within the ministry after the fact are serious indeed."

You went on to say, "I'm not justifying what went on there, because I have some very serious questions about happened, why it happened and exactly, you know, who was involved. But certainly there was information-gathering within the ministry on the weekend to deal with this issue. Now, if that was part and parcel of that, I think it went well above and beyond what I would call appropriate."

Then you went on to suggest to the press that you were continuing to look at this matter, that you expected to make a statement in the House today. It was a surprise to us, frankly, that you did not make a statement to this House. You had said yesterday that you would release to us the names of the investigating team and that you would reassure us that none of the people on the investigating team were in any way connected to the EMDC when these allegations occur.

You are responsible for the actions within your ministry, and this is the essence of ministerial responsibility. I suggest to you that you're not carrying out those ministerial responsibilities as you ought to, and I ask you how we can have confidence in you and your ministry that you will get to the bottom of what exactly has happened at Elgin-Middlesex and what involvement the staff of ministry may have had in this coverup.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm sure it'll be a rainy day on the Sahara before I have the confidence of that group over there. In any event, I want to say that Inspector Ken Christopherson, who's the manager of the internal investigations unit, is setting up the investigation, and he's available. If the member has any other allegations or concerns, she can certainly contact Inspector Christopherson directly and share those concerns with him.

Also, I've asked the Attorney General today to appoint a senior legal counsel to assist Inspector Christopherson with this investigation and to ensure that all the areas of concern that have been raised in the public press and in this Legislature will be thoroughly and adequately addressed.

Mrs Boyd: The minister continues to puzzle me in that he wants to make this a partisan situation, and we're doing everything we can not to make it a partisan situation but to try and get to the bottom of what the situation really is.

The minister says he continues to have confidence. He did tell us yesterday that he would name all the people on the investigating committee and he would assure us that none of those people had been seconded to EMDC at the time of the incident. I do not believe that the minister has in fact released those. We called the office this morning and asked for those names. They said they would call us back before noon. They have not done that. I wonder why, and I wonder if what we are seeing is what we suspect is happening, that this investigation is partially being done by people who are implicated in the issue.

If that's not so, all we're saying to the minister is that it's important, if you are to maintain the confidence of the people of Ontario, particularly young offenders and their families, in your ability to care for them when they're in your custody, for you to answer this kind of question and to be very clear that we have a right to ask that.

It is absolutely strange to me that you appear to be hesitating to assure us that there is no conflict of interest within the investigating team and that you can give us reason to have confidence in those people; that you're prepared to name them and that you're prepared to talk about what their terms of reference are and how they have been instructed to carry out their investigation.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm pleased to give the member assurance with respect to conflict of interest, and I'll make sure that she's provided with name, telephone number and all the details she requires before the end of question period.

Mrs Boyd: I should tell the minister that I believe it should be made public to everyone, and certainly if he makes it available to me it will be public to everyone.

The situation just continues to spread. This is not an isolated kind of thing. The London Free Press headline today: "More Allegations Surface of Paper-Shredding at Jails." It's quite clear from what we read in the Free Press that another allegation of shredding has taken place at the Bluewater correctional facility over the weekend, last weekend, the past weekend since you became aware of this.

It was reported that Bill Bell, the president of the union representing about 160 staff at Bluewater, said, and this is a quote from the newspaper

article confirmed, I should tell you, by Mr Bell:

"The shredder was definitely going. You never see these managers come in on Saturdays, but they were there and they were definitely shredding documents."

He added further: "During an investigation like this, it's hardly the time to be shredding documents. Are they trying to cover something up or what?"

Minister, the concerns are growing. There's an appearance of a coverup. You have not been in control of this matter from the beginning. You do not appear concerned that people in your ministry prevented you from knowing what was going on so that you could take control of this matter. Why are you permitting this situation to continue?

Hon Mr Runciman: To suggest that I'm not concerned is ludicrous. I have indicated in very strong terms my concern over the allegations with respect to this matter.

In terms of urgency, I think my request to the Attorney General today indicates the sense of urgency that I feel and the government feels with respect to moving this investigation along quickly and with great attention to all the concerns that have been laid before us and certainly before this Legislature. I think the matters are being handled in an expeditious way. I indicated earlier, with respect to the allegations surrounding the treatment of young offenders, that yesterday I received the very clear assurances of the child advocate that ministry officials, in her view -- an independent, third-party view -- handled that matter in an effective and efficient way.

OVERTIME PAYMENTS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Chairman of the Management Board. I want to come back to a discussion the chairman and I had in this assembly about five weeks ago. It concerns one particular overtime payment the Ontario government has made to a senior manager at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre during the five-week public service strike earlier this year.

Minister, let me just review for your benefit and the benefit of the assembly what are now the agreed-to facts: that one senior manager at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, whose regular salary is approximately $150,000 annually was allowed to claim $50,500 worth of overtime in a five-week period. Minister, $50,000 of overtime in a five-week strike means that this individual, whose annual salary is $150,000 at least, was billing and was paid $10,000 a week in overtime, or he was billing and was being paid $1,400 a day in overtime. How is such a scheme possible in Ontario in 1996?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I wouldn't call it a scheme, but what happened was that there was a strike and as a result of the strike there was a very low level of staff available at this institution and all other institutions. There are people who are living at this psychiatric hospital who need support and the support that was available was very minimal. The person in question and many of the other staff, I might say, were needed around the clock for the psychiatric patients of this hospital -- they have needs.

Indeed, there were many concerns coming in from the general public, from various organizations with regard to the health and safety of the people at these psychiatric institutions.

The payment to this individual that the member is referring to, and another individual, was based on straight time; it was based on the number of hours they put in in excess of 44 hours per week. That included Saturdays, it included Sundays, it included evenings, it included midnight work, right around the clock, seven days a week, through the full five-week period. If you work that out, as strange as it may seem, as much as it may seem, the amount in this particular case amounted to about $50,000.

Mr Conway: I think all reasonable people would accept and understand how in this circumstance some level of overtime would be both required and justifiable, and I'm certainly in that category. I understand how a senior manager would be in receipt of some reasonable overtime, but we're talking about a manager whose annual salary is at least $150,000 a year; we're talking about a health facility that was not abandoned by all its staff -- the essential services agreement provided a quite good level of staffing, which we would understand -- and we understand there was not a particular problem on that picket line.

I want to come back, though, to the essence of this case. We have a guy who's been paid $1,400 a day in overtime. It is unbelievable. It is outrageous. It is indefensible. Any manager who's ever run any public or private sector operation would know that if you were faced with special circumstances, you would craft a special overtime arrangement that would not allow, as you have allowed in this situation, for this manager to claim overtime for every waking and sleeping moment that individual lived during the course of a 35-day strike.

The taxpayers of Ontario have a right to know what you are going to do about this violation of common sense. Some overtime, yes, but this level of overtime, $50,000 worth for 35 days, is absolutely unbelievable and unacceptable.

I say in my final question, on behalf of the taxpayers and probably on behalf of the member for Simcoe East, what are you going to do to claw back some of this $50,500 that is absolutely necessary if you're going to have any credibility as a manager in this province today?

Hon David Johnson: First of all I assure the taxpayers of Ontario that the expenditures at this institution and right across the civil service were considerably lower during this period, particularly the payroll at this institution, the psychiatric hospital. Each payroll was half a million dollars lower than it would have been during a normal period of time, so there was a considerable amount of money saved or expenditures that were reduced. Through the whole strike some $150 million in taxpayers' money was saved.

People worked overtime, people worked 24 hours a day, people worked on Saturdays, people worked on Sundays -- and the individual who is being referred to was not a manager; the individual was a chief psychiatrist, a specialist who was required. The staffing level, contrary to what the member is saying, was not considered acceptable by this government. We advocated for a higher level of staffing. The staffing level was not considered adequate by anyone who had anything to do with these institutions. These people worked around the clock, beyond 44 hours. They were paid straight time, and the taxpayers saved a great deal of money as a result of the whole exercise.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General. Yesterday in response to my question you advised me to contact the office of the child advocate, and I understand your ministry officials had encouraged her to contact me. She is in London today, and we spoke this morning. She confirmed, as you thought she would, that she was very pleased with the conversation she had with you yesterday, that she thought the assignment of an experienced person from the institutional abuse

section of the Ministry of the Attorney General was a positive step and that she thought you understood her concern about the fears of young people around talking to the police, given what had happened to them, so I confirm that's quite correct.

I asked her a specific question, whether it would be any breach of confidentiality, as guaranteed under the Young Offenders Act or any other act, if both her reports, the one on Bluewater and the one on Elgin-Middlesex, were released. She agreed there would be no breach of confidentiality, that those reports had been written for public consumption.

Will you commit today to releasing both those reports this afternoon?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): That is a change of opinion on the part of the advocate. Last week when I indicated in the House, to an interjection about releasing the report, that I didn't see a problem with that, the advocate immediately contacted my office and indicated that she had concerns. During our discussion yesterday she indicated those concerns as well and said that she felt perhaps a

summary of the first report would be appropriate.

Subsequent to that, officials in the legal branch of my ministry have spoken to officials within the Ministry of the Attorney General, who have serious concerns with respect to a release of that report.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): When are you going to take charge?

Hon Mr Runciman: Well, we have to ask for that kind of advice -- I'm sure the members appreciate that -- with the possibility of criminal proceedings. I have to accept the advice, as I'm sure that member, a former Attorney General, would appreciate.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, that was the same kind of advice that was given in the 1970s around the investigations that went on in St John's, St Joseph's and Grandview.

I think you need to understand that we're in a different era; we're in an era where these things are considered to be very important. Quite frankly, you're contributing to a coverup in this situation.

The advocate is saying that the names of young offenders are not mentioned in those books. If what the Attorney General's ministry is worried about is liability, I can assure you that our experience with St John's, St Joseph's and Grandview and many other situations is that liability simply grows as time goes on. Put some fresh air into this situation and allow people to know what went on. Make sure there are no more coverups, such as there were under a Conservative government in the 1970s with which we are still trying to cope 20 years later, and make this matter public. Release those two reports, Minister. Promise us in this House that you will.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm not going to get into responding to the political rhetoric. I will commit to revisiting this issue based on the new view of the child advocate.

AGRICORP

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As the member for Scarborough Centre, an urban riding in the greater Toronto area, I thought it important for me to familiarize myself with the needs and concerns of all of Ontario. That is why I have chosen to become involved in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs's advanced agricultural leadership program, an MPP exchange program which teams urban MPPs with a farmer for a day at Queen's Park and then a day on a farm.

More than a dozen members of the government side of the House are taking

part in this exchange, and I commend each of them for taking

part in this initiative. I am pleased to bring to the attention of this House the fact that my exchange partner, Mr Kevin Kale, a cash cropper from Seaforth, Ontario, whose 300-acre farm grows soybeans, corn and wheat, is joining us in the members' gallery here today.

By coincidence, just yesterday the agrifood and rural business bill was being debated in this House, and the members opposite brought up different concerns about this bill. One of the concerns brought up in this issue is that of AgriCorp's broad mandate.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question.

Mr Newman: The members opposite objected to that mandate being too broad and wanted to restrict the ability of this new farmer-run agency to help farmers of Ontario.

I wonder if the minister could tell me why he wants to put --

The Speaker: Question, please. Put your question.

Mr Newman: -- farmers themselves in charge of delivering farm programs.

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague from Scarborough Centre for the question regarding Bill 46, and I want to welcome his farmer to our Legislature. I'm sure my colleague will find it most interesting when he leaves Scarborough Centre and goes out to the farm. I'm sure it will be a learning experience for him.

Part of Bill 46 of course creates the AgriCorp corporation, and we want to give AgriCorp the tools and the ability to run the different programs the government will mandate for it. It will also give it the flexibility to run the programs on behalf of the farmers regarding the safety net and the crop insurance issues. As we've told our agrifood sector, we will consult through every step of the process, but one thing we will not move from is that AgriCorp will be run by farmers.

Mr Newman: Yesterday, the member for Essex-Kent raised some concerns with regard to a clause in

schedule A of Bill 46, a clause which he says deals with user fees. The member even went so far as to suggest the bill should perhaps be amended to remove this clause. Could the minister tell this House how he responds to this concern?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: As I've mentioned on other occasions in the Legislature, an AgriCorp was brought forth by a Liberal government; an AgriCorp was brought forth by an NDP government. An AgriCorp is brought forward by an Progressive Conservative government and it will become a fact of life, better than the other two parties.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: They do not want farmers to run their business, and I'm very concerned about that. We will see, as we further debate Bill 46, that AgriCorp and Bill 46 are a very positive step to help agriculture and our food producers.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY STAFF

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the environment minister. Minister, yesterday in response to my colleague the Liberal environment critic, you stated that you are downsizing your ministry in order to focus your resources by sticking to core business.

In November, the Premier of this province presented biologist Bill Keller from Sudbury with the prestigious Amethyst Award for outstanding work in the core business of lake and water restoration caused by acid rain. In this one individual you have the knowledge, the expertise and the efficiency for future water restoration that is unprecedented, as attested to by numerous world-renowned scientists.

In May, not only did you close regional offices, you sank Bill Keller with a pink slip, outraging the world environmental community and sending out the message that water and lake restoration and enhancement are not core business for this government.

If you won't rescind the pink slip to Bill Keller, as we have asked, will you tell the House and the international environmental community today how many water quality scientists of Bill Keller's calibre will be located in Sudbury monitoring and restoring the lakes in and around northern Ontario?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): There are a number of files ongoing in our ministry from time to time, and I believe I said yesterday that one of the things I have come to know as a minister is that there are many highly qualified individuals working in our ministry, scientists recognized worldwide for their contributions to many different fields.

The member opposite is asking me a question about the employment status of an individual within the ministry, and I said yesterday that when tough decisions are made -- in fact, there were two offices in Sudbury. We have determined to close one of those offices, and in the downsizing that is occurring this gentleman being referred to has received a layoff notice.

There is a collective agreement in place. I would like to know if the member opposite is indicating that I as a minister should interfere in that collective agreement and the employment procedure that is in place by law. I suspect that if I as a minister or any other individual did interfere in the collective agreement process, in the bumping procedures that occur, the hue and cry from across the way would just be howling.

Mr Bartolucci: No, I don't think she should get involved and interfere in collective agreements, but yes, I think as the Minister of Environment and Energy she should interfere and make sure the environment is protected.

That comment and the minister's comment yesterday in the scrum, that acid rain is not a top priority but water and air quality are, remind me a whole lot of the comment made by former US Vice-President Dan Quayle. He said, "It's not pollution that's harming the environment, it's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." Minister, you sound a whole lot like Dan Quayle.

I doubt your fellow caucus members such as the member for Parry Sound or the member for Victoria-Haliburton or the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay would be telling their constituents and agreeing with you that acid rain isn't a top priority. Clearly the tourist industry is affected. Active and passive water recreational activities are affected by acid rain. Indeed the economies of several regions in both northern Ontario and southern Ontario are affected by it.

As the environment minister, and without sounding any more like Dan Quayle, would you please tell the House what your definition of acid rain is and how it differs from air and water pollution?

Hon Mrs Elliott: I'd like to remind my colleague across the way that it was in fact a Progressive Conservative government that signed the first acid rain agreement with the United States. I would like to remind the member across the way that we just recently released a document about acid rain, the 1994 progress report submitted by the four major sources of sulphur dioxide in Ontario. These emissions were 46% below their targets, an excellent reduction. In addition to that, 10 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide emissions have been reduced as a result of the US Clean Air Act of 1990.

Action is being taken on this file. Action on acid rain is happening in this province. It is not dependent on one person. It is the result of hard work by many people in my ministry and throughout this province.

HOUSING CONSULTANTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I want to ask you a fairly simple question. Do you think it is appropriate for a senior manager of your ministry to encourage clients of --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: The question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There we go. We got him.

Do you think it's appropriate for a senior manager of your ministry to encourage clients of the Ministry of Housing to deal with a specific private sector consulting firm in the social housing development field?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): No, I don't.

Mr Bisson: That is certainly somewhat of an assurance, but I have here a letter dated June 5 on ministry letterhead that is from the regional manager of the eastern regional office of your ministry, who specifically -- and I won't go through all of the letter because it's fairly long, but just to pull out a certain excerpt, what it says here is: "The purpose of my writing is to encourage your corporation to consider the services available from Pro-Shelter Inc. Many of you will have worked with these individuals and would know why I am recommending them to you."

Minister, is it appropriate for a regional senior manager of your ministry to encourage the clients of your ministry to deal with a particular private sector firm? Is this the kind of business relationship with the private sector that your ministry and your government are trying to encourage?

Hon Mr Leach: To the member opposite, I'm not aware of the details of this situation. I've just been given a copy of the memo. I would like to have an opportunity to look into it and I'll respond directly to the member in the House.

GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. The previous government rented tens of thousands of square feet of office space that it didn't need. Much of this space was empty when we took office and still is. Have you considered any economic method of utilizing this space?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I would like to thank the member for Scarborough West. He is correct that indeed the government, when we took office, did rent some 11 million square feet of office space. We own another 13 million square feet of office space. The cost to the taxpayers of the province of Ontario of the leased space is about $200 million a year.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, a good amount, or some of the space, is empty. This government is set on a course of doing better for less, so we are looking for opportunities to use this space more efficiently, opportunities to restructure, to downsize and to free up space and reduce costs. Our plan is to consolidate staff, to use the space more efficiently, to vacate some six and a half million square feet of office space and to save the taxpayers $60 million a year as a result.

Mr Jim Brown: There are empty buildings in my riding that are owned by the Ontario government, and residents are concerned. How can we help in doing something with these properties?

Hon David Johnson: Again, there are empty buildings. Some of the buildings will be sold. We have recently sold 801 Bay Street, as one example. Our preferred course in dealing with vacant space or empty buildings is to work with the local municipalities, the local merchants, the local MPPs. The building in Niagara Falls is a case in point, where there are ongoing discussions and I hope that as a result we will find a good use for that community and put that building to good use.

In the case of Scarborough and Scarborough West, my understanding is that indeed there is some vacant space. The Ontario Realty Corp has been working with the city of Scarborough and we're in the early stages of working on some of these properties with the possibility of rezoning the properties, with the possibility of selling some of the space. I'm very pleased the member for Scarborough West has taken an interest in this. His input will be invaluable. I think we can work together with Scarborough and with the member to put this space to best use for the taxpayer.

AGRICORP

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I want to put this question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and help the member for Scarborough Centre, who was quoting the remarks I made yesterday on Bill 46. Minister, the member from your side was asking whether you would withdraw a certain part of the act. That

part I was questioning yesterday, that your own member wants to know about is, "Providing for the collection of the levies or charges by AgriCorp, the corporation to which they are payable or any class of persons." I know your member is interested in this and you didn't answer the question, so I'm giving you a second opportunity. Are you removing this from the bill?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank my colleague from the Chatham-Kent area. AgriCorp will be set up, and the tripartite will continue whereby the provincial government, the federal government and indeed the farmers will be providing the funds, as they have in the past. The government will be supporting them. We fully expect that some time in the future they will be autonomous and financially able to sustain.

Mr Hoy: I'm quite aware of the costing of the premiums through the crop insurance. Today it is a three-way street, with the farmer, the federal government and the provincial government. But we're talking about user fees in the administration of AgriCorp. The possibility exists here in this clause that persons not even availing themselves of services from AgriCorp could be charged a fee. Your own member is asking if you are withdrawing this clause. On two occasions you have not answered the question. I'll give you another opportunity today. In front of your farmer friends here, are you going to withdraw this clause from the bill?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The honourable member is seeing some skeletons in closets when he says "the possibility" and "may." AgriCorp will be set up, will be funded, indeed whatever funding is needed. They will be looked after, as they have been in the past, but it will be run by the people who indeed will do the best job: the farmers themselves.

HYDRO RATES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Last Friday you released Donald Macdonald's report on Hydro. As you know, Macdonald has recommended privatization of about a third of Hydro.

The issue for many Ontarians is hydro rates. Hydro's own discussion paper, issued last September, says that privatization would increase rates by 26% to 30%. Amazingly, Mr Macdonald says rates would come down because of the wonders of competition. He came to that conclusion because of an anonymous study done by an anonymous financial institution, one, I may add, which could possibly financially gain from privatization.

Minister, I'm asking you today, will you release all studies that were done for the Macdonald advisory committee so that the public can weigh all the information for themselves?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): The model that was indicated as part of the report was done by the Macdonald commission. It is just a model; it's indicated just as that. They did not indicate this would be a prediction of rates; they indicated this was how a model worked out. It's the property of that commission. My understanding is there was a letter of confidentiality signed when that was undertaken.

Ms Churley: May I remind this minister that she is accountable to the people of Ontario, not to Mr Macdonald and his advisory committee. Page 112 of this report indicates that Macdonald's study was a very detailed one. Two different scenarios had rates falling by 11% and another by 27%. Yet this contradicts not only Hydro's own study but the common sense, if you will, that says rates must rise because private investors will want to make a profit in exchange for the risk, and they're going to have to pay taxes. Did Macdonald's study not take this into account? Let's get all of the information on the table.

I'm asking you again, will you tell us who the studies were done by and will you release all of the work that was done for the commission now?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): Again, the model that was in the Macdonald commission is very clear. It was done by the people on the commission, and they can speak to the details of that particular thing.

The real issue that my colleague across the way is talking about is the issue of rates, and certainly that's why this whole conversation is occurring about Ontario Hydro. Are our rates going to go up? Certainly we've seen a history of rates going up. Between 1990 and 1994, the rates for Ontario Hydro went up by almost 40%. It's an indication that we were on a steady incline of rates that could destroy the competitiveness that is absolutely necessary for our industries and our businesses to flourish in this province.

That's why this conversation is being undertaken. Keeping Ontario Hydro, our electricity industry, competitive and vital is what the Macdonald commission is all about. For every citizen in this province, when the changes are undertaken by this government, whatever they may be, our criteria will be affordable rates, reliable service and safe electricity production.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is also for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The chief building officials in two townships in my riding have written to me concerning a situation somewhat unique to our region, the ongoing problem of residents attempting to obtain an installation permit for a partially raised septic system. On land with a heavy clay base, residents are required to install a fully raised septic system, costing between $20,000 and $30,000, a price so prohibitive that many residents find it too costly to build.

As you know, we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions. Would you now be able to inform the people affected in my area what action the government is taking to address this concern?

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm very glad to answer the question that's been posed to me by my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent. There are many residents in his riding who are concerned about the issue of septic beds and whether a raised septic bed will do the job or whether we need to go to a different type of septic bed, one of course being much more expensive, as my colleague has indicated.

What I can say to you is that the ministry is aware of this, that we have talked in the past and that there is a study under way right this minute. We hope to have a definitive answer within a couple of months, and what we are looking to determine is the most cost-effective method of septic beds that will work. Certainly cost is a factor, but I can assure my colleague that the other consideration that is foremost in our minds is making sure the environment and the groundwater in that area are protected in whatever system is chosen. It's under way, and we hope to have an answer in a couple of months.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I had the pleasure of receiving some petitions from the constituents of Mississauga North last week. The constituents of Mississauga North, the home riding of the Minister of Education and Training, as well as other residents of the province of Ontario, are concerned about the educational implications of the moratorium on new school production.

"We, the undersigned, believe that the moratorium discriminates against children in high-growth areas. Moreover, the lack of suitable school accommodation violates basic rights, including the right to a quality education and the right to be treated in a fair and equitable manner.

"We, the undersigned, also believe that the freeze on new school construction is unfair to the building and construction industry. The moratorium translates into thousands of lost jobs and substantially higher levels of unemployment throughout the province of Ontario.

"Accordingly, we demand:

"

(1) That the moratorium on school construction be lifted immediately.

"

(2) The full amount of $167 million be restored immediately to the capital expenditures fund administered by the Ministry of Education and Training."

I have over 300 signatures here and I affix my name as well.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition from the Muriel Collins Housing Cooperative, and the petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it wants out of the housing business; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every cooperative housing project in this province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts from cooperative and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to provide to private landlords; and

"Whereas cooperative housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes, owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the cooperative housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of housing cooperatives. Also included in the discussions is the continuance of the rent-geared-to-income assistance upon which thousands of co-op members depend and which will promote greater responsibility for administration by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing cooperatives."

I agree with this petition wholeheartedly and I affix my signature to it.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I submit a petition today from residents in Nepean, Richmond Hill, Gloucester, Orleans and Ottawa, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have also been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail and, even then, only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I've affixed my own signature because I'm in agreement.

CHILD CARE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Many of my constituents in Thunder Bay are very concerned with this government's attitude towards child care and are certainly eagerly awaiting the report by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Janet Ecker, in terms of what she has to say. This petition says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has threatened to replace child care subsidies with a voucher system; and

"Whereas this voucher system will discriminate against families presently utilizing subsidies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these cuts to this critical economic investment for communities of Ontario and to guarantee that the current child care subsidy system remains funded and supported."

I'm proud to sign this petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition and letter signed by hundreds of members of Aluminum, Brick and Glass Workers Local 203G, sent to my office over the signature of president Marco Monaco. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas Cam Jackson's discussion paper is not about ensuring that the workers' compensation system can meet its future obligations to injured workers; it is about handing over power and profit to employers and private insurance companies; and

"Whereas rather than addressing the issue of reducing workplace injuries the Harris government is cutting benefits to injured workers, forcing workers on to welfare and shifting the costs of compensation from employers to our health care system and taxpayers; and

"Whereas the discussion paper outlines various approaches to cutting benefits, looking at recent changes in New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia where injured workers are paid as little as 75% of net average earnings; the current level in Ontario is 90%, reflecting the long-standing WCB commitment to full compensation for lost wages; and

"Whereas the discussion paper uses a flawed analysis of the unfunded liability to create a phoney fiscal crisis at the WCB to support slashing workers' benefits; and

"Whereas the Harris government has ignored the fact that the unfunded liability of the WCB has decreased two years in a row by over half a billion dollars alone last year and that assets are now up over $7 billion; and

"Whereas the Harris government has also ignored the report by KPMG Peat Marwick commissioned by the federal government which shows that not only are Ontario rates competitive with the US, but in fact they are lower;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Harris government undertake real public consultation, listen to injured workers and hold full province-wide public hearings before introducing any legislation."

As I support this also, I affix my signature.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition pertaining to the exorbitant price of gasoline in Ontario. This petition is signed by Mr George Withy of Brechin and approximately 940 concerned citizens from Beaverton, Cannington, Pefferlaw, Sunderland, Keswick and Sutton, to name but a few communities. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the provincial government to take action to prevent gasoline prices from rising higher without a bona fide reason.

"This petition is to protest the extremely high price for gasoline at the pumps and what looks like petroleum fixing."

I agree with this petition and I have affixed my name to it.

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Earlier today the Canadian Federation of Students and the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care held a press conference at which they delivered a petition signed by 1,187 people, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are extremely concerned about the future of the Ontario student assistance program child care bursaries, non-repayable. Many sole-support parents who attend post-secondary institutions rely on these bursaries to further their education. With the recent changes to the provincial-municipal cost-sharing arrangement for child care subsidies, affordable child care spaces are being reduced.

I am happy to sign my name to this petition.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition that was sent to me by Santiago Hernandez and it's signed by every single member of the St Charles Co-Op on Prince Charles Drive in Welland. It reads:

"Whereas the Ontario government has clearly indicated that it wants to get out of the housing business; and

"Whereas the Ontario government is reviewing the legal contracts and budgets of every co-op housing project in the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced plans to make huge cuts to co-op and non-profit housing funding; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to replace affordable housing with subsidies to private landlords; and

"Whereas co-op housing is a proven success in providing affordable homes owned and managed by the people who live in them; and

"Whereas the actions of the Ontario government" -- the Conservatives -- "threaten to destroy stable, well-maintained communities which have been built over the last quarter of a century and the investment all Ontarians have made in this type of affordable social housing;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government sit down with the co-op housing sector to negotiate a deal which will ensure the long-term financial viability of the housing co-ops and the continuance of rent-geared-to-income assistance by the co-op housing sector and less interference by the government in the day-to-day operations of housing co-ops."

I concur with that and I've affixed my signature.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): "Whereas the public secondary teachers of Ontario have taken a workplace democracy vote in accordance with Bill 7 and have rejected the proposed College of Teachers by a 94.8% vote;

"We, the undersigned, urge the provincial assembly to instruct the government to withdraw Bill 31, the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1995."

I submit this to the Legislature.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition from tenants of Pape Apartments YWCA. It reads:

"We, the undersigned tenants of Pape Apartments YWCA, 15 Pape Avenue, a community of women and children, are concerned that:

"

(1) Our homes will be lost because of the government's cuts to non-profit housing projects which will undermine their financial viability; and

"

(2) Low-income families and the most vulnerable in our communities will suffer devastating hardship because of cuts to the numbers of needy people receiving rent-geared-to-income, RGI, assistance and the increased rents for those currently receiving such assistance.

"We call upon you to stop these government actions that seriously jeopardize our futures and the ongoing viability of our non-profit housing communities."

I agree with this petition and affix my signature to it.

DRUG MARKETING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"We, the undersigned, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario Inc, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"That the safety of consumers, and senior citizens in particular, is at risk because brand-name drug manufacturers are attempting to force generic drug manufacturers to market their equivalent products in a different size, shape and colour than the brand-name medication.

"Any action that affects the look of generic drugs could endanger patient safety through improper use of medicines;

"Therefore your petitioners request that Parliament regulate the long-standing Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour which is similar to that of its brand-name equivalent."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm proud to present petitions on behalf of my home-town Hamilton and District Labour Council, representing workers in the Hamilton area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and affix my signature.

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.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition signed by 210 people from here in the Toronto area. It's called the education cuts petition and it reads:

"We, as students/parents in a concerned society, oppose all education cuts that the current government has suggested in the province of Ontario."

I wholeheartedly endorse that, and I affix my signature to it.

FONDS PROPRES POUR ÉCOLES

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai ici une pétition qui m'a été envoyée par Claude Levesc, directeur de l'école publique Nouvel Horizon de Hawkesbury.

«À l'honorable John Snobelen, ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation :

«Attendu que les 207 élèves de l'école publique Nouvel Horizon vivent dans une école qui n'est pas convenable, qui est située sur un terrain d'un acre et qui n'appartient pas au conseil scolaire ;

«Attendu que l'école publique Nouvel Horizon a une très petite bibliothèque, pas de gymnase et des classes mobiles qui ne sont pas reliées à l'école ;

«Nous, soussignés, faisons parvenir une pétition afin que le financement pour l'achat d'un terrain et pour la construction d'une nouvelle école soit accordé tel que promis en 1994.»

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Hamilton East has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community and Social Service concerning workfare. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CROWN FOUNDATIONS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES FONDATIONS DE LA COURONNE

Mr Eves moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act to encourage the financial support of Public Institutions by Individuals and the Private Sector through the establishment of Crown Foundations / Projet de loi 71, Loi visant à encourager le soutien financier des établissements publics par les particuliers et le secteur privé grâce à la création de fondations de la Couronne.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Very briefly, the Crown Foundations Act, 1996, will allow hospitals, libraries, cultural organizations and certain other public institutions which may qualify to establish crown foundations. Through this legislation, donations to these foundations will receive the same treatment as donations to universities which already have crown foundations. This bill will encourage increased individual and private sector support of these public institutions and the worthwhile services they provide to Ontarians.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 72,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 72, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): The Highway Traffic Act, as most people know, provides for the suspension of a person's driver's licence for a specific period of time if the person is convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code for driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug. The amendments in this bill would require that a person successfully complete a course respecting drug or alcohol abuse before the suspension is lifted, a course that's approved by the registrar and conducted by an agency or person similarly approved by the registrar.

That, I submit, and some experience in the province already indicates, will go a long way towards reducing recidivism and making our streets and highways far safer, especially with respect clearly to impaired, drunken and drugged drivers.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (EXPENSES ALLOWANCES), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INDEMNITÉS POUR DÉPENSES

Mr Shea moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): This House made a decision several months ago to amend the honorariums that are paid to members of the House, and it is probably appropriate for us to do exactly the same thing for all those who are in the receipt of pay from municipalities and their various local boards and so forth. The bill amends the Municipal Act to provide that beginning in 1997 no part of an amount of salary or other remuneration that a member of a council of a municipality or a local board receives shall be deemed to be an expense allowance.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

Mr Palladini moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 55,

An Act to promote road safety by implementing commercial trucking reforms, drinking and driving countermeasures and other aspects of Ontario's comprehensive road safety plan / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à promouvoir la sécurité routière pour la mise en oeuvre de mesures de réforme du camionnage, de contremesures visant l'alcool au volant et d'autres aspects du programme général de sécurité routière de l'Ontario.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I stand today to move second reading of the Road Safety Act,

an act targeted at unsafe truckers and drinking drivers. This government is committed to improving the safety of Ontario's roads, and the Road Safety Act introduces new measures aimed at doing just that.

These measures are directed at people who put others at risk, truck drivers and operators who drive unsafely and operate poorly maintained vehicles. It zeroes in on people who drink and drive. It states that seatbelt use is for all people. It is time for everyone to take responsibility for their actions. The onus is on the driver and operator. This legislation is vital if we are to improve safety on our roads.

Last week, Ontario participated in Road Check '96. This is an annual, round-the-clock, three-day inspection blitz that takes unsafe trucks off the road immediately. This event provides a snapshot of how well the trucking industry is meeting our safety standards. At the end of the 72 hours, 2,912 trucks were inspected. Of these, 1,139 trucks, about 39%, were removed from the road because they failed to meet our standards. In all, inspectors found 3,397 defects and 885 charges were laid.

The most common defects were brakes that were out of adjustment and problems with suspension and tires. Ontario has inspection stations open at random and mobile enforcement teams looking for unsafe trucks. We are concentrating our efforts on the need for action against mechanical defects and the unsafe operation of commercial vehicles on our roads.

An inquest into the two fatalities caused by wheels falling off large trucks recommended tougher sanctions against safety infractions. We have listened and heard. We are prepared to take action. Fines for safety violations will increase dramatically: Minimum fines will more than triple; maximums are increased by 10 times, to $20,000.

Two levels of fines have been identified. Minimum fines for such offences as defective lighting and overweight and overlength vehicles have increased to $200 from $60. Minimum fines for serious violations such as faulty brakes have increased more than five times, to $400. This new legislation opens the way for MTO to develop a conduct review system for commercial drivers akin to the demerit point system. This would effectively flag such non-moving violations as hours-of-work infractions and load security offences.

Before I leave the subject of unsafe trucks, let me say that unsafe operators must change their ways. If they don't, they won't be driving on our roads for much longer. These measures come from our road safety plan, which initially focuses on three areas: enhancing enforcement, preventing drinking and driving, and improving safety in the trucking industry.

Other drivers who need to change their ways are those who continue to drink and drive. In Ontario, drinking and driving continues to be a problem. In 1993 alcohol was involved in 42% of Ontario's motor vehicle fatalities. That year 565 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes and more than 26,000 drivers were convicted of impaired driving. Alarmingly, 63% of all impaired driving convictions were for a second, third or greater offence. These figures are too high. Not only are these drivers a danger to themselves; they put everyone else at risk.

It is clear that drinking and driving continues to be a major road safety issue. It's clear that we have to take drinking drivers off the road and hold them accountable for their actions.

This legislation will help to resolve the problem by removing drinking drivers from the road with an immediate 90-day licence suspension. The administrative licence suspension has proven extremely effective in other jurisdictions in targeting drinking and driving offenders. The administrative licence suspension is an automatic suspension handed out by the registrar of motor vehicles. It will apply to those drivers who register a blood alcohol level of more than 0.08% or to a driver who refuses to take a breathalyser test.

Our research shows that licence sanctions that are swift and sure are effective deterrents. With the introduction of the administrative licence suspension, Ontario joins Manitoba, Nova Scotia and 40 American states that have already implemented this program. British Columbia has introduced legislation and Quebec is considering that proposal.

With this legislation, Ontario joins the other provinces in charging a reinstatement fee. We propose a $100 fee to drivers whose licences were suspended for a variety of reasons. These include an accumulation of demerit points, convictions under the Criminal Code, serious Highway Traffic Act offences such as excessive speeding, careless driving and racing, and failure to pay court-ordered fines and judgements from convictions of motor vehicle related offences.

Suspended drivers cost the province in many ways: for appearances in court by enforcement officers, processing court documents and sending suspension notices by registered mail. Currently, there is no charge for returning a licence to a suspended driver. This $100 fee will make suspended drivers more accountable for those costs, not the taxpaying public.

We all know that seat belts save lives. Researchers and medical experts agree there are few, if any, medical or physical conditions that warrant a seat belt exemption. This bill introduces a new process to allow for limited exemptions for specified periods of time. We want all drivers and their passengers to buckle up. A similar approach was undertaken in Quebec, where the number of exemptions is down to about 100. This move comes with the support of both the Ontario and Canadian medical associations.

This legislation is a start towards cracking down on those drivers who put others at risk. We expect more changes to come into effect later on this fall.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments to the Minister of Transportation and congratulate him for bringing forth this legislation. This is legislation which was actually introduced as a road safety plan by three ministers -- the Solicitor General, the Attorney General and the Minister of Transportation -- and the Minister of Transportation of course has carriage of it.

The three issues which the minister has covered today are transit safety, administrative licence suspension and the issue which the Solicitor General has been working on involving road safety. All of these issues are of specific concern in most of our ridings; in fact, I suspect in all of our ridings. I particularly congratulate him on the issue of the administrative licence suspension, although certainly the issue involving wheels coming off and those sorts of unfortunate incidents concern us greatly.

The facts he has referred to as to why the administrative licence suspension is of great importance I think are worth mentioning again, because certainly this process isn't new across North America. It has been popular and it's proved a deterrent to drinking and driving across North America. The minister has talked about how there have been reductions of up to 50% in alcohol-related crashes, injuries and deaths in jurisdictions with this type of program where there is administrative licence suspension. Specifically, it's been adopted in 40 states.

He indicated that it's been adopted in Manitoba and Nova Scotia, it has been introduced in British Columbia and I believe Quebec is considering it, so this is something that's proven.

I think all of us in the House support the minister, and I look forward to an early and fast passage of this bill.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I was interested in the minister's observations, particularly the ones revolving around automatic licence suspension. One of the difficulties I'm having is not that I disagree with that particular measure, but I think many members of this House will recognize the problem of repeat offenders that the minister also alluded to.

One of the difficulties I'm having as I comprehend the government's approach is that I know throughout rural areas of the province OPP law enforcement is falling by the wayside. There are not as many police out there. One of the great difficulties is you can suspend anybody's licence, but that does not keep them from driving -- they do drive with suspended licences.

Unless the government is willing to take the responsibility seriously and protect our citizens by putting the police out there who will actually enforce these laws and these rules, we will continue to see people who have suspended licences, either for this reason or for other reasons, on our roads, driving without insurance, causing great difficulty.

The fact that we say you can't drive does not mean you won't, unless we're willing to take the proper resources and put them out there so we can be assured that those people who are in fact censored, either administratively or by a court, are not going to be able to drive and endanger those other citizens of Ontario, and indeed from other provinces and states who are out on our highway. So I cannot understand why the Solicitor General is --

The Acting Speaker: The time has expired. Further questions or comments?

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Just commenting on the Minister of Transportation's introduction of the bill, I listened to some of the comments he made and I find it interesting that he didn't talk about the cancellation of photo-radar, when clearly 50% or more of the population of Ontario is saying that if photo-radar had been there, it would have been safer for people from northern Ontario and other parts of the province coming in and we wouldn't have the accidents we have right now.

I also didn't hear very much comment on his suggestion that the speed limit should go up to 110 or 120 kilometres an hour on these roads and why the Solicitor General pulled the plug on him on some of those comments.

As far as the other areas he's talking about are concerned, wheels falling off transports, I agree we have to get tougher on these types of unsafe things that are happening out on the highways, and as well, transport drivers who are operating their vehicles with no brakes. There's no doubt about it that people are going to get injured and killed, and disabled for the rest of their lives, as a result of large companies throughout this province, whether their headquarters are in this province or in another province or in the United States, letting the transports come in and drive with loose tires on their transports or buses -- unsafe vehicles; no brakes on them.

I have no problem supporting that part of the legislation, but I don't know how they're going to do it with the large cuts they're doing in the Ministry of Transportation.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): There was a tremendous tragedy involving drinking and driving in my riding some five or six months ago and the public in my constituency is calling for a variety of tougher measures with respect to dealing with this program. The minister will know that after this tragedy, I and my colleague the member for Mississauga South talked with him on numerous occasions about beefing up these laws. She's introducing a private member's bill in the coming weeks to deal with this issue.

One of the reasons she's having to redo it is that she's taking the ALS out of her bill, because the minister has agreed to follow through on it now, which is good news for public policy in the province of Ontario. Where the administrative licence suspension has been introduced, it's been exceptionally effective as one tool in the arsenal to fight drinking and driving. We look forward to its introduction this fall to see what sort of positive effect it will have in Ontario, because we believe it will have a very good impact.

The other issue with respect to enforcement is funding for the RIDE program. I was encouraged during the run-up to the budget and financial statements that the provincial government has doubled the budget of grants to over 100 communities across the province under the RIDE program as a way of ensuring enforcement of this very important initiative.

I notice as well that the auto insurance reforms introduced by my colleague the member for Mississauga West had a component which dramatically increased the fines for driving without auto insurance, which we think will be another positive mechanism in terms of fighting drunk driving, and we look forward to the debate on my colleague from Mississauga South's private member's bill in this regard.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It's a pleasure for me to rise today to add to the comments, I hope in a substantive way, regarding the introduction of the Road Safety Act, 1996, Bill 55. I would say at the outset and to the minister that we in the official opposition support the intent of the bill.

There's absolutely no question in my mind or in those of all Ontarians that when it comes to drinking and driving, if there were any way we could reasonably reduce the effects of that to zero so that there were no accidents, no deaths, we would all be much happier for it. In fact, if we could see our way clear to have a zero tolerance when it comes to drinking and driving, that certainly would be the most effective and the most wanted. But with the introduction of this bill, with its content, certainly steps are being taken in the right direction.

I want to say to the minister that I appreciate that yesterday we were given a briefing on the contents of the bill and were able to ask questions. That's very helpful, because it gives us an opportunity to respond to the bill in a constructive way. As I said, we intend to support this bill as a first step towards road safety in Ontario.

As the minister has pointed out, there are two primary initiatives in the bill. One is the administrative licence suspension for drunk drivers, and the other is to increase fines for truck safety violations. These are two good initial steps. However, we need to look at this as being a part of a long-term plan for making the roads in Ontario safer. More important, we must ensure, any time legislation is introduced which affects our civil rights and liberties, that the legislation is reasonable, is acceptable in a democratic society, and that the implementation, the administration and the enforcement of the legislation be such that no person's rights are violated.

There's a very fine line here in this bill, in that a licence will be suspended further than it is now. The present legislation has in it the ability for enforcement officers to suspend a licence for 12 hours in those cases where a driver who has been drinking or suspected of drinking has exceeded a limit or has refused to take a breath test.

I don't want this legislation to be seen as being inconsistent, but to me there is a bit of inconsistency in the government's approach to drinking and driving in that just recently the hours of operation of licensed establishments were extended from 1 am to 2 am. I wonder, certainly in many areas where public transportation isn't available, where even cabs may not be available, how this extension of the ability to drink later into the night coincides with the effort to make our roads safer. Also, the availability of being able to drink on golf courses seems to me to be a little inconsistent with the government's intention to make our roads safer.

On the one hand we're encouraging drinking, which I suspect in many cases leads to driving after, yet on the other hand we're suggesting that we want to make our roads safer.

Something that should be emphasized in connection with this bill, which I don't think addresses it to the point we feel it should, is enforcement. It was mentioned earlier in a couple of the comments on the minister's remarks that what is needed in conjunction with this is increased enforcement. We need more resources out on the highway. I haven't any idea what the percentage of drinking drivers who are stopped and subsequently charged and/or convicted might be to the total number who may be on the road.

In fact, we were told yesterday that even when a driver who has been drinking is apprehended, there's a good chance, ministry officials have said, that this driver has driven on 200 different occasions under the same influence. That would indicate to me that the minister should seriously approach the Solicitor General and that enforcement should be of equal concern with this legislation.

What we've seen over the past few months is that police resources have been diminished. It was suggested by my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin that particularly in rural areas this becomes even more difficult because of the area that has to be covered and the limited resources we have.

The minister gave us some information on the result of a recent high-profile, I believe 72-hour blitz on safety and truck driving -- I mention this on the enforcement side -- 39% of the trucks were found to be defective. Again I think enforcement needs to be of prime concern.

But the main points of this legislation that I'd like to cover today are those in the area of licence suspension. The administrative licence suspension consists of an immediate 90-day suspension when the blood alcohol limit exceeds 0.08 or where the person stopped refuses to take a breath test. This administrative suspension is of course independent of the Criminal Code charges and at no time do the two merge. That's the extent to which I'm going to try and give a legal opinion on this -- I know there'll be some relief on the other side -- because I'm certainly not a lawyer, but that doesn't mean we can't approach this from a layman's point of view and one of concern.

Two key elements should be addressed in the proper execution of this measure so that individual rights are not violated. I tread carefully here, because although we have a history that Canada is known for upholding individual rights, there are times when we obviously have to consider the rights of the general public.

The blood alcohol test equipment that's going to be used must certainly meet proper standards to ensure that the readings are not erroneous and that this objective evidence will not be found to be incorrect during criminal proceedings. Where there might be some injustice is that where someone's licence is suspended for 90 days and then they proceed to criminal court and it's found either that the evidence was not objective or for some other reason the individual is found to be innocent, there's no recourse for that individual, having gone through up to a 90-day suspension.

Should the person choose to appeal the licence suspension, we feel the appeal process must be efficient and it must be clear and everyone must know what their rights are. In other words, the process must be timely. People should be able to appeal, we believe, the decision within 48 hours. In addition, the grounds and procedure for appeal must be clear and simple so as not to result in the creation of complex legislation.

Therefore, it's evident that the intention of the licence suspension measure is to send a message to motorists that drinking and driving are not an option and that serious consequences will result. We certainly agree with that. But I can't express or stress too strongly the importance of ensuring that the substance of the legislation not be jeopardized by a process which violates individual rights.

A second important part of this legislation is the increased fines for safety violations. Before I get into a couple of points on this, I again come back to the question of enforcement. The 72-hour blitz that was held, as I mentioned earlier, resulted in some 39% of trucks on the road, and buses may have been included in that, being found to be defective.

We also heard anecdotal stories where some trucks didn't even go on the road during the time of this blitz, that some trucks were able to avoid the area in which the inspections were taking place, because truckers communicate very effectively on the highways and are able to keep track of these kinds of things, not only the police but where these high-profile inspections are taking place.

In this part of the legislation as well it's incumbent upon the government to increase inspection, to increase the resources for inspection, to increase the areas in which inspections are made so that unscrupulous companies can't simply avoid the inspection areas.

Of course, we've had examples. There was one given in the Legislature only weeks ago where a company that was previously owned by the Minister of Education and Training, Jarsno Equipment, had 11 pages, some 161 charges between May 1991 and December 1995. I