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

September 2, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L222a - Tue 2 Sep 1997 / Mar 2 Sep 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

LABOUR DAY

SECOND MARSH

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

AUTOSYSTEMS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (SUSPENSIONS DE PERMIS)

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SEMAINE DE COMMÉMORATION DE VICTIMES DE CRIMES DE VIOLENCE

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

PROPERTY TAXATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

GASOLINE PRICES

CLASS SIZE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

CASINOS

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

HAZARDOUS WASTE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CANCER PREVENTION

COURT DECISION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

BEAR HUNTING

COURT DECISION

TVONTARIO

FIRE IN HAMILTON

COURT DECISION

GASOLINE PRICES

PAY EQUITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): This past week, a municipal restructuring commissioner sent in by Mike Harris and Al Leach told a packed crowd at the Jellicoe community hall that the towns of Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac, Nakina and 25 other townships surrounding them would cease to exist as of January 1, 1998. In their place will be one new municipality called Greenstone, a municipality larger than many countries and one that will have but one mayor and eight councillors to represent this extraordinarily vast area.

It's difficult to know what the greater insult is. Is it that the municipality spent so much time over the past several months working with the commissioner on devising an upper-tier form of government only to have it rejected out of hand by Commissioner Gray, because it's now clear that was never an option for this government; or is it that the government seems intent on stamping out the identity of communities in our part of the province whose history and survival should be celebrated, rather than scorned?

The fact is, this forced amalgamation is part of the government's master plan to further reduce the voice of northerners. By taking away the northern support grant, they seem intent on actually killing some of our northern communities. Now, by reducing the number of municipalities, they hope to further still our voice.

I would advise the Premier of one thing today. Yes, you can change our names and reduce our numbers, but you will be accountable at some point in the not-too-distant future. I can tell you, the people of northern Ontario and Beardmore, Geraldton, Longlac, Nakina and all the townships will neither forgive nor will they forget.

LABOUR DAY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The Latin-American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez says this:

"Our view of the past must not be impelled by nostalgia but by hope. It is not a fixation on the painful and traumatic events of the past, but rather a concern about contemporary poverty and a conviction that only a people which has retained its memory can change its situation and build a better world."

I had the privilege yesterday of marching in my community with a large number of men and women who remembered yesterday the contribution that the organized labour movement has made to the quality of life of communities like Sault Ste Marie in Ontario and indeed in Canada over the years.

In the midst of the anger and frustration, I sensed, in talking to the folks I came in contact with a tremendous feeling of solidarity against a known enemy attacking them from every direction, not remembering the very valiant fights that were fought on the picket lines, the sacrifices that were made over the years by our forefathers and foremothers as they fought for health and safety conditions in the workplace, as they fought for better wages, as they fought for benefit packages that we all benefit from here.

I would say today to all those who marched in Labour Day parades yesterday --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

SECOND MARSH

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It is with great pleasure that I rise to address the House regarding the Second Marsh wildlife area, situated at the east end of my riding of Oshawa.

The Second Marsh is a provincially significant wetland of about 123 hectares that is home to some 361 species of plants, 265 species of birds and 27 mammal species.

A Lake Ontario shoreline wetland, the Second Marsh is unique in that it is one of the few remaining wetlands adjacent to a sizeable urban centre. As an environmental habitat the Second Marsh plays a vital role in maintaining the ecological and environmental health in Oshawa. This urban wetland is a breeding habitat for wildlife, and contributes to nutrient storage, flood control and water purification.

The value of the Second Marsh to the community of Oshawa is evident in the recreational and educational opportunities it provides.

The Second Marsh wildlife area is a predominant area that was showcased to the judges for the National Communities in Bloom program. The marsh was a significant part of Oshawa's success in this program.

As a member of one of the member groups that contribute thousands of volunteer hours to the Second Marsh, I would like to recognize and congratulate the tremendous value the organizers and volunteers contribute to the Second Marsh. Wetlands such as these not only contribute to our communities, but to our whole environment as well.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Today a new school year began for 810,000 children who ride school buses in Ontario. For the past two years I've been working on a piece of legislation to protect those children. Bill 78 received the unanimous support of this Legislature almost a year ago. Bill 78 puts teeth in the law which is supposed to protect children. It gives the law a mechanism to gain convictions which cannot be made now.

Mr Palladini can crow all he wants about the new school bus safety measures in Bill 138. That is bull roar. Nobody is fooled. All he has done is raise the fines. If you can't get a conviction, it doesn't matter. Police do not have the resources to follow 16,000 buses around the province.

This morning a new school year started in Windsor. In the midst of all the government's media hype about the protection of increased fines comes a report of two vehicles in Windsor which blatantly passed a school bus.

The minister's bill is a failure. If it doesn't work on the first day of school, one of the few times when police can afford a safety blitz, when is it going to work? It leaves children at risk from speeding drivers. Eleven children have been killed and over 80 injured in the past 10 years by drivers who ignore the school bus warning lights.

The government must pass Bill 78 or introduce vehicle liability --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. I say to the member for Essex-Kent that I'm going to reserve on "bull roar," by the way. The member for Beaches Woodbine.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We'll all quite look forward to that ruling, Mr Speaker.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I rise today to state my very real concern about the recent announcements of cuts in the speech pathology program, and in particular the stuttering treatment program at the Clarke Institute. These cuts have been attributed directly to cuts in funding by the provincial government.

At a time when the provincial government has indicated its desire to invest in children's programs, one of those programs being an increase in money available for speech pathology, many of us who recognized that the need was so great and that money that was being reinvested after the cuts would do little to address the need, hoped however that it would stem the tide, that it would stem the haemorrhaging of the system, yet now we find the program at the Clarke has had to be cut as a result of cuts in the provincial funding.

It is a world-renowned program. The program there, particularly the part of the speech pathology program that deals with stuttering, has helped many people move from an impediment in their speech to being able to learn to speak, to operate in productive employment. It has been a godsend for many people.

This is an issue of disabilities, and a disability that can be overcome. I urge the government to take another look at this. We shouldn't lose this world-renowned program, this program that really helps people get over disabilities.

AUTOSYSTEMS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate the employees and management of Autosystems of Belleville. For the second year in a row, General Motors has recognized Autosystems as being "the best of the best" among its 30,000 parts suppliers, naming the company the best headlamp supplier in the world.

After 10 years in business and more than 10 million headlamps shipped, Autosystems has amassed several industry honours. Those honours included GM's Mark of Excellence award in July 1990, Ford's Q1 award in 1994, and more recently certification in the QS9000, an impressive industry standard set by the three major automakers.

President Don Warren said: "Since the first day of business, Autosystems has recognized that doing a first class job every day is critically important to success." That philosophy continues to pay dividends as the company has been awarded contracts for five more headlamps for various vehicles coming on line in the near future.

The success of Autosystems demonstrates that Quinte is a great place in which to do business. I would like to encourage other manufacturers to come to Quinte and to learn for themselves what Autosystems has learned, that we are the best in the world.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): With the recent breakout at the boot camp, I think it's time for the Harris government to re-evaluate some of its privatization initiatives.

I think they need to understand that companies, in order to make a profit, are going to shortchange some of the conditions inside a prison. Companies benefit from every dime not being spent and corrections is a very labour-intensive industry. Staff-inmate ratio, training and preparation of staff have an important role to play in determining the cost of institutionalization and the quality of life in the prison.

The pressures of the work with a hostile and manipulative clientele make Ontario jails challenging places to work, resulting in lower pay, less benefits, fewer and less qualified employees doing monotonous routines, which will only make matters worse.

In the Harris government's zeal to reinvent government, we should remember there is a great deal of difference between privatizing and contracting out the pickup of garbage and hiring a corporation to run a jail. The privatization policy also promotes a failed crime control approach and subscribes to the idea that incarceration can win the war against crime.

What the Harris government needs to be talking about is the need to develop viable crime prevention policies. We tend to deal with the symptoms and not with the causes of crime, and the privatization debate impedes the development of alternatives to the prevailing correctional policies.

The major challenge is to reinvent corrections as a public service and not as a private business.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): In the Common Sense Revolution the Conservative Party promised no new user fees, but beginning yesterday, September 1, northern motorists now are hit with a new vehicle registration fee: $37 to register a car, $21 to register a motorcycle and $2 more for registration of certain commercial vehicles. This is a new user fee, plain and simple.

The government has tried to argue that the fee is fair because the money will be used to improve northern highways. The government conveniently forgets that northerners already pay more because we pay at the pumps. We consistently pay more for gasoline than anywhere else in the province and that is why our NDP government removed the vehicle registration fee in northern Ontario.

If the government truly wants to improves northern highways it would take some of the $1.9 billion in new gas tax revenues it will receive this year and apply some of that to northern highways.

But to demonstrate how desperate the government is to pick the pockets of northerners, consider the case of Mazie McGlade, a constituent of mine. The new registration fee went into effect yesterday, September 1. Her birthday is on August 31. When she went to get her registration stickers on August 23, she was told she would have to pay the new fee because the office was closed on August 31. So even though the fee did not take effect until yesterday, she had to pay $74 for her two vehicles.

This is a money grab. The government should do the right thing: remove the registration fee in northern Ontario.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Today thousands of classrooms throughout York region are empty when they should be filled with secondary school students beginning their new school year. They're empty because their teachers have been on strike, and for the past number of weeks students and their parents have lived with the uncertainty of whether classes would start or not.

Well, they didn't start today and that's not fair to students, it's not fair to their parents, and frankly it's not fair to the many teachers who would prefer to be teaching. It's also not fair to many single-parent families and families with two parents working who have to make other arrangements.

Fortunately, a tentative agreement has been reached and classes are scheduled to begin tomorrow. I am hopeful that this agreement will be ratified and that the education of York region secondary students can begin and continue uninterrupted.

I call on the Minister of Education to turn his attention to this very important issue and ensure that contract negotiations for the teaching profession are in future conducted within a more professional framework, a framework which will not involve the withdrawal of services from Ontario's students.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (LICENCE SUSPENSIONS), 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (SUSPENSIONS DE PERMIS)

Mr Grimmett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 154,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers' licences / Projet de loi 154., Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les suspensions de permis de conduire.

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

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): If enacted, this bill would require the suspension of the motor vehicle licence of anyone convicted of impaired operation of a vessel. This is a very important issue in my riding. It will put drinking and boating on the same level as drinking and driving and it will place a major deterrent before anyone who is considering having a drink before they operate a boat.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENT CRIME COMMEMORATION WEEK ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SEMAINE DE COMMÉMORATION DE VICTIMES DE CRIMES DE VIOLENCE

Mr Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 155,

An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week / Projet de loi 155, Loi proclamant la Semaine de commémoration des victimes de crimes de violence.

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

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): This bill would commemorate the victims of violent crime and aims to foster awareness of victims' issues in our society and the reform of our criminal justice system.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that the Vice-Chair and the clerk of the public accounts committee be authorized to adjourn to Edmonton, Alberta, to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees in September 1997.

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

DIANA, PRINCESS OF WALES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I'm not sure that this is precisely a motion, but I believe we have unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence in memory of Diana, the Princess of Wales.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent for the House to observe a moment of silence as an expression of condolence over the passing of Princess Diana. Agreed? Agreed.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You have mercifully backed away from your intention to give students who are having learning difficulties large Fs for failure on their report cards. Instead you're going to give them an R, which you say will mean extensive remediation is needed. The problem is that your $533 million in cuts to education has already forced boards to cut back on their special education programs and to let go of remedial teachers.

You could provide some immediate reassurance that your talk on Friday about help for students with learning difficulties is not just part of your most recent public relations campaign. You could provide that reassurance by restoring the $533 million that you have already cut from the education budget so that special education programs and remedial support could be put back into the schools. Will you commit today to restoring the $533 million you have cut from education?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The member for Fort William once again is poorly informed, and perhaps her staff have not done the proper research. I'm sure she must be embarrassed by continually standing in the House and providing information which is just blatantly wrong.

First, if the member opposite checks on the report card, she will find there is a box that is checked by a teacher when the student has a special need and when they are on an individual lesson plan. That's on the report card, and it's there obviously to reflect those special needs and those special circumstances.

If she checks, or has her staff check, she will find that not one cent has been reduced from special needs funding by this government -- not ever, and won't ever be. If she checks again, she will find in the guidelines we have put out for the allocation model, which we are working on now, that we are committed to special funding for special needs students. We think that what has happened in the past with the general legislative grants program isn't sufficient for those special needs students, and that's why we're addressing it in particular.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I remind you of the question. The question was whether you were prepared to put back the money you took out of education. I gather the answer is no. I don't find that reassuring and I don't think parents or educators across the province will.

You are about to take over the entire responsibility for deciding how much money is going to be spent on education. There is a very real fear out there that your idea of what is fair and equal means taking every student down to a common denominator that will be far too low to meet the needs of any student, let alone a student with special needs, that it will be a financial bottom line that works for you and the Treasurer, for the provincial budget, but doesn't work for kids in a classroom.

In boards like Ottawa, Toronto and Windsor, to name just three, boards where they have been spending more to meet the needs of their students, your new funding model is going to mean, without question, larger class sizes, less special education and probably the loss of junior kindergarten.

You love to talk about excellence in education, but you are likely only going to be prepared to pay for average. Do you think average will be okay when it comes to keeping class sizes down or providing special education programs?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Fort William is just plain wrong. Everything that she has said in the last couple of minutes is exactly the opposite of what this government has been saying over two years, what all our actions are directed to. All of our directions are this: finding out what each individual student in this province needs for a first-class education and providing that funding. That's why we've done all the work we've done over the last year.

That's why this government has taken the responsibility for funding education, so that each student in this province has an opportunity for a high-quality education, an opportunity that has been lacking in some cases because your government failed to fix a broken funding system. We will.

Mrs McLeod: I suggest to you it's very difficult to make judgements about right and wrong when nobody has any idea what this minister or his government plan to do when they take over control of all education funding.

Minister, I suggest to you that since no one knows what you're actually going to do when you control the funding, we can only go on the basis of the evidence to date, and the evidence is very clear: It is all about cuts. It is about cuts to the funding for junior kindergarten, it is about cuts to the funding for adult education, it is about $533 million worth of cuts by your government alone and it is about boasting that you're going to be able to cut aid even more. That is the evidence. No wonder people are worried about what's going to happen to education when you're the only one left in charge.

I want to take you back to something your own consultants said a year ago. Ernst and Young said to you in the report you commissioned on the financing of education that before you try to come up with a new funding formula you need to get a better understanding of the reasons why some boards spend more than others. So, Minister, I ask you: Will you give those expert task forces you have set out the time they need to go and get a greater understanding of what the real needs of quality education would be and what they would cost, board by board, or are you prepared to settle for averages because they fit within your provincial budget?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Once again, the member is wrong. We have never said we would settle for averages; as a matter of fact, quite the opposite. We believe we have to identify the needs of individual students, something that has been lacking in the past, one of the reasons why some of our students in Ontario have been second-class students by virtue of the funding available to them. We will take care of that.

In addition to that, the expert panels are out there looking to see and quantify those costs on a geographical basis. We understand and we've said very clearly from the beginning that there are different costs in different parts of Ontario, that different students have different needs. That's why we're doing the hard work we're doing now, building on 16 months of work that was done by a committee that reported to us last year. We're building on that to get a better funding system.

What I can guarantee the member opposite is this: We will not sit on our hands. We will not watch as the funding system makes second-class students of some of our young people in Ontario. We will not do that, unlike your government.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the acting Premier. He will appreciate that there's growing concern across Ontario about the impact of the Harris government on 1998 property taxes. During a briefing with ministry officials, we have had it confirmed that the province, when it takes into consideration the elimination in 1998 of a $666-million municipal support grant program, is adding about $660 million of new costs on to property taxes. That's from the ministry officials.

At the same time the government has said to the taxpayers that they should expect property taxes will be cut, average 5% to 10%, over the next three years, taking into account that the province is adding about $660 million of extra costs to municipalities, is it still the Harris government's intention that property taxes will decrease 5% to 10% over the next three years?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): This government has said all along that the unconditional grants would disappear. The amount of money left in the unconditional grant is about $670 million. The province of Ontario said at the same time that the other transfer of authorities and the switching of funding, which in a general sense municipalities have been requesting for many years, would be revenue-neutral, and indeed that is the case. The transition teams composed of members of the government and of the municipalities continue to work on that issue, but there will be a revenue-neutrality in the rest of the switching.

It is the government's view that municipalities, with the ability now to be accountable for various services, to have the full responsibility for those services, will indeed be able to reduce the costs, just as the province has reduced costs, and not only will they accommodate that reduction of $670 million but have the opportunity for reduced taxes.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate your confirming that they are going to be picking up another $660 million of costs.

The province now is a key player in setting the property tax rate, as you know. The province now will set about one third of the property tax rate, about a quarter on residential and half on businesses, so the question is obviously in people's minds. You've told municipalities that their property taxes should drop 5% to 10%. The province is going to set one third of the property taxes. So people are anxiously awaiting the government's answer. You've told the property taxpayers to expect a 5% to 10% decrease.

Is it the government's intention to reduce its property tax rate by 5% to 10% over the next three years?

Hon David Johnson: The portion of the property tax that the province will have control over pertains to education and the province will have that responsibility. Half of the cost of education will be funded by the province of Ontario and half of the cost of education will be determined through the property tax by the province of Ontario.

I think the evidence has been that Ontario is very concerned about the cost of government all across the board. Indeed, we have taken steps to reduce the cost of government through all ministries over the last couple of years, internally, the administration of the province. The complement of staff for the province has been reduced over the last couple of years. I think you can count on the province of Ontario being very sensitive to the taxpayers of Ontario and making sure that they get the best value for their dollar.

Mr Phillips: Again, I will say to the public: The government has said property taxes are going to drop 5% to 10%. The province now is setting one third of the property tax rate. You have told municipalities to reduce theirs by 5% to 10%. We are expecting a commitment from you today to do the same thing or to acknowledge that you have misled the people.

I will go on to a supplementary on social housing, and that is, nobody believes that social housing should be put on property tax. Mike Harris handpicked 14 people to serve on the Who Does What committee and they unanimously said, "Don't do it." The municipalities said, "Don't do it." AMO said, "Don't do it." Mike Harris is fond of saying, "We did what the municipalities wanted." They said, "Don't do it, it's a huge mistake." You are dumping $900 million -- and a majority of social housing is seniors. I say to the seniors of this province, the government of Ontario is abandoning you.

My question is this: Will you table today the study, any study that recommends that social housing should be put on to property tax?

Hon David Johnson: What I would say is that municipalities, for years and years, have been asking the province to sit down -- through the Liberal government, through the NDP government, through this government -- and to rationalize the services and the funding for various services that are shared between the province and the municipalities.

It has been the municipalities' view -- and municipalities have run a fairly tight ship over the years, much tighter than the province of Ontario over the years -- they've said, "Look, if we can divide the services so that the municipalities are accountable for certain services and fund certain services, then it'll be more effective, more efficient for the taxpayer." That's exactly what we've done.

Earlier this year the association of municipalities and many of the mayors and councillors came forward with a formula and they said to the province of Ontario, "We're not 100% in favour of what you were doing earlier in the year, but here is a new formula that we're putting forward." The province has accepted that formula and that is the formula that's being put into place.

Mr Phillips: That's not true.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you can't say that.

Mr Phillips: What he said is not true.

The Speaker: No, we've determined that that is out of order.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I got kicked out for that.

The Speaker: I know.

Mr Phillips: I withdraw that, Speaker.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Today students across Ontario went back to school not knowing what the future holds for them this autumn. Many children have already experienced this government's cutbacks and know there are more to come. Some children couldn't start school this year because their junior kindergarten programs have been cut. Yet the minister persists in saying that he can get more for less.

The minister is continuing to swing the axe. He's forcing the closure of up to 12 schools in Ottawa and up to 20 schools in Toronto. Schools are continuing to lose special education assistants, speech pathologists, and students can't get the special needs help they need. Does the minister really believe that his new report card and his rewritten curriculum are going to make parents forget about overcrowded classrooms, closed schools, old and worn-out textbooks and materials and closed libraries?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): The member for Algoma has said many things in his question. As always, most of them are absolutely without truth, they are not --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can't say that. You must withdraw.

Hon Mr Snobelen: All right, Mr Speaker. Let me say that they are not factually correct.

I can say this directly to his question: Yes, I expect that a standardized report card across the province that clearly indicates how a student is doing will help parents. And yes, I believe that a new, improved curriculum that spells out standards year by year by year will vastly improve the environment for teachers, for students and for parents, vastly improve it over your failed Common Curriculum. Yes, I believe that.

Mr Wildman: It's not just me or members of this House who are saying this. Last spring I toured Ontario's schools to hear about cutbacks at first hand and talked to administrators, teachers, parents, students, support workers. They made out report cards based on the new report card formula, although they gave the minister an F, mainly because they said he doesn't listen well.

I'll give you some examples: an Exeter parent who doesn't want her daughter continuing to be taught in the crowded classroom she had last year; a Kingston parent whose daughter has special needs and says the government's cuts are stripping her daughter of her opportunity to develop to her potential; a Port Dover student whose special education teacher was lost because of cuts. These stories are endless in these report cards.

When is the minister going to start listening and provide adequate funding to ensure quality education for all students in Ontario?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to report to the member for Algoma that we're not waiting, that we're doing that right now. We have expert panels working on what the correct amount of funding and the correct way of funding are to make sure that every student in the province has an excellent education.

I want to point out that, yes, classroom sizes grew while your government was in power, particularly as a result of the social contract. Yes, that's true. It's regrettable, but that's the deal your government cooked up with people during your term.

We think it's wrong. That's why we're moving to take control of funding, so we can make sure those services are available for students and to make sure those classrooms will be classrooms that the teachers can work in and students can learn in. That's what this government is doing.

Mr Wildman: How can the minister be so misinformed? I'm so disappointed in his response. I'm appalled by his ignorance. Perhaps the reason is that the minister only attends new school openings, like he did this morning in Mississauga, and doesn't go to many other schools in the province.

How about a grade 8 student in Cobourg who could not use a desk because there weren't enough in his classroom, or some classrooms where students had to stand because they were too crowded, or one school in London where a woodworking class ran out of wood halfway through the school year? These are serious problems that the minister has to address, and his rhetoric doesn't address it.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Wildman: Is the minister going to introduce a funding formula that will not pull out the rug from under thousands of students in Ontario, forcing more junior kindergarten program cuts, special education cuts, loss of psychologists, social workers, speech pathologists, technical programs, sports and other extracurricular activities? Will the minister prove me wrong by assuring everyone in Ontario that his funding formula won't lead to lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Snobelen: In direct response to the question from the member for Algoma, absolutely yes. We will be introducing a funding formula that will meet the needs of every student. That's our intention. That's why we're doing the hard work right now.

I can assure the member for Algoma that at the end of the day we will be moving forward to making sure that the students in Ontario take their rightful place at the head of the class and that student performance in Ontario is the best in Canada. That's what our objective is.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for High Park-Swansea, maybe you could finish this outside.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Gasoline prices across this province continue to be high following the long weekend. On Thursday of last week, your colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations introduced a resolution on gas pricing, calling on the federal government to appoint a special investigator to review the gas price situation and to make recommendations. Yet just a week before, you told reporters, "It's not the purpose of this government to interfere in corporate actions." You defended the free enterprise system.

Minister, I believed you and that your words were the true reflection of this government's agenda. Last week's resolution was total hypocrisy, grandstanding at best. Will you prove me wrong and, in a show of good faith, commit to debate that resolution in this House this week?

The meeting of the ministers from across this country is happening September 10 and 11, and we don't have enough time, unless you agree to debate that resolution this week in this House, to do something with it.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'd like to refer the question to Mr Tsubouchi.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I agree with the member that it's a great idea for us to get together and become unanimous on an issue that has a great impact on the people of Ontario. I think all of us agree that gas prices in the province are outrageous. I believe Mr Martin is sincere in what he's saying because of the area he represents, as are our members. We're all concerned with this.

I must say, the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism has indicated his concern with the issue in terms of contacting Mr Manley. I think it's important for all of us to debate this issue, to get on with it, to have unanimous consent. I agree with that.

However, what I would like to see is the House leaders from the opposition parties get together with our House leader so we can find the appropriate time prior to the conference, so we can take this unanimous agreement to defend the consumer of this province.

Mr Martin: Minister, you're the government. Let's

schedule it.

People are angry about the high gas prices. It was particularly felt over this long weekend when many Ontarians travelled across this province. Now it's September, and while people are returning to school and work, they still have to pay those very high gas prices.

Your government tabled the resolution on gas pricing last Thursday aimed at the federal government. I agree that the federal government has a role, but I understand that Prince Edward Island has the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission, the regulating body that controls the price of petroleum in that province. Minister, Prince Edward Island has proven that the province has a role to play. Will you commit to a similar program to PEI's to control gas prices in this province and prove that you're sincere about wanting to take some action on this?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First, I believe the member understands that it is with the consent of the House leaders that we arrange the

schedule on many of these matters. We certainly want this to happen. I convey to the member that if you want this to happen, convey that message to your House leader so that when they get together we can have this resolution. It's extremely important.

With respect to the Prince Edward Island situation, it's going to be on September 10 that I will be speaking with my counterpart in PEI. We want to make sure this will have some applicability to the province. If it's good, I see no reason why we can't look at this.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I might remind his colleagues, who are currently hooting away in the House, that you had five years in which to do something. The situation is not new. In fact, I will certainly pose the same question to you.

But I think we need to do this, need to do something. Certainly we'll be speaking to PEI. I think it's up to us to protect the consumer of Ontario from outrageous prices. The member, if he agrees sincerely, will get his House leader to arrange for us to debate this issue.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent to ask the government House leader to debate it today.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Algoma is seeking unanimous consent to debate the motion on gas prices. Agreed? No. I hear a no.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Point of order, Mr Speaker: Since you're mentioning House leaders, I'd be delighted to give unanimous consent today to bring in a predatory pricing law in the province of Ontario under your jurisdiction.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent for a predatory pricing law? Agreed? No. Final supplementary.

Mr Martin: The government is obviously not serious about this issue. You're not going to debate this resolution and you're not going to follow the lead of PEI. Will you at least reverse your decision on the charging for motor vehicle registration for people who live in northern Ontario? Will you do that?

We've asked repeatedly for your government to recognize the fact that consumers in northern Ontario routinely pay 10 cents more a litre for gasoline. It has been said repeatedly in this House by my colleagues that northerners have no choice, that they have to drive their cars. Minister, will you at least commit to having the motor vehicle registration fee eliminated for vehicle owners in northern Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I suppose I question why the member wants to actually debate a resolution. If he feels so strongly about it, just agree to it right now. Forget about the debate and just say: "Yes, we agree to this resolution. It's good for the people of Ontario."

Let me say something to the member for St Catharines. Obviously, the member for St Catharines has had somewhat over 10 years to think about this. You had five years when you were in power. It's been 10 years. You've had a lot of time to put your mind to it, even though you did nothing about it when you were in. Come on. We've got to have something that makes some sense to the consumer in Ontario.

Mr Bradley: Here is your chance.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, come to order. Everybody come to order.

Mr Wildman: Point of order, Mr Speaker: If the motion is called by the government House leader for passage today, we will agree to give unanimous consent to pass it without debate today.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Point of order, Mr Speaker: The government is committed to bringing this motion forward for debate, but I would think it should be done in a manner that allows all three parties to consider it fully, and then we will. We're more than anxious to bring this forward.

The Speaker: Government House leader, I appreciate your point of order, but I have a unanimous consent to put. I'm trying to gather, the unanimous consent was --

Mr Wildman: If it is called today, we will pass it without debate.

The Speaker: I guess that is fairly clear. The House leader for the third party is seeking unanimous consent to call the resolution today and pass it without debate. Agreed? No. I have a no.

Interjections.

The Speaker: He hasn't had a chance to answer the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. That's out of order and I ask you to withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask you to withdraw. Just withdraw it.

Mr Martin: I withdraw.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I might remind the member that successive governments have had a chance to deal with this. If I can go backwards here, Mr Charlton and Mr Laughren made some statements about this in the House certainly, and Mr Kwinter, Mr Rae, Mr Peterson. We have been very clear on this. We have said, number one -- and everyone has acknowledged this -- that it is a federal issue, that we are going to have this discussion on September 10 with Mr Manley, with the federal Parliament.

We have also committed that if they won't do something about it, our government will. That's our commitment. We'll deal with it.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Education. Yet another school year began today across Ontario. Energetic, eager and excited elementary school students went to school to meet their new, dedicated teachers and their fellow classmates.

Quick phone calls to schools across Ontario indicate a serious problem is again re-emerging, and that of course is class sizes across Ontario. In southwestern Ontario, we have a grade 4 and 5 class of 38 students; in eastern Ontario, a grade 7 and 8 class of 40 students and a grade 3 and 4 class of 36 students; in northern Ontario, a grade 3 class of 36 students, a grade 5 class of 37 students and a grade 7 class of 36 students. Even for the first day of school, that is unacceptable.

My private member's bill, Bill 110, which protects class size, awaits your call to the social development committee. When will you call my bill, Bill 110,

an act which protects class sizes, to the social development committee?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly agree with the member opposite that there is a frustration for parents in this province when they know that Ontario has one of the lowest ratios of students to teachers in Canada, at something a little over 15 to 1, 15 students for every teacher, and then their student is in a classroom with 30 or 35 or 40 students.

They go, "How can this be?" and that's one of the reasons we have asked an expert group, the Education Improvement Commission, to look at that: to say what is the right way of deploying teachers in Ontario, how we can use the qualified professional teachers we have to make sure that we can achieve what we all want to, and that is to have an excellent system of education for our students.

We will receive that report, and when we do, we will look at all the ways we can control class size. But I can say this to the member quite clearly: This government is moving forward with a funding model that will allow us to do that for the first time in the history of Ontario. That's what we're doing.

Mr Bartolucci: On May 15, 1997, Bill 132, the Tartan Act, went to the House for first reading. On June 5, it received second reading and was referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. On August 21, it was reported for third reading. This private member's bill was introduced by the Conservative member for Hamilton West.

Minister, my bill, Bill 110, which protects children so that they can be educated in classes of meaningful and practical size, passed second reading on February 6, 1997, and currently awaits your call to the social development committee. Seven months later, this hasn't happened. Will you tell the people of Ontario what is more important, the number of blocks in a tartan and the number of threads in each block or the number of pupils in the classes of Ontario? Will you tell the people of Ontario what is more important to the Mike Harris government?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order, order. Would you come to order over there, please? Thank you.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Where's that?

The Speaker: Lambton, I think. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to thank the member opposite for the theatrics. Let me see if I can explain to you what I think is important for the people of Ontario. They want to make sure that the quality of education in Ontario is there for their students, and they want to make sure that that future of education is built step by step, in a way that the foundation is laid for the future.

I can tell you, the way to do that is not some simplistic solution that the member opposite might see. The way to do that is by having the province do the hard work and the homework to make sure the future of education is right. That's exactly what we're doing today. We're building the allocation model to be the best in Canada. We're building the curriculum to be the best in Canada. I can assure the member opposite that unlike your government when it was in power, unlike the previous government, we will address the serious issues. We will address it in a serious way, not in a simplistic way like the member opposite.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury, I ask you to withdraw those comments, please.

Mr Bartolucci: Withdrawn.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the acting Premier. This afternoon we begin debate on your downloading bill. In a way that's almost becoming a hallmark of your government, it's another example of how you've rushed ahead so quickly and failed to pay attention to the detail that I'm not even sure you're aware of the full impact of some of what's contained in your bill. I'm talking specifically about the proposed legislative amendments to the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the download of public health to the municipalities and the new guideline for mandatory services.

You've not just downloaded public health, you've totally abandoned any kind of a focus on healthy adolescents, on teen health. Lost is the entire

section on healthy adolescents. Part of what is now required for teens is moved under some other programs, like smoking cessation. A little bit of it is kept, but gone is the requirement to provide teen counselling and investigation into teen suicide. Gone is substance abuse counselling and education. Gone are dental programs for teens.

Minister, I have to ask you, do you think that teen suicide or substance abuse among teens is no longer a problem for the provincial government to be concerned about?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): In terms of the transfer of authorities and the revised funding formula between the province and the municipalities, something I might add that municipalities have been requesting for years and years, if not decades, something your government, the NDP government, tried and failed miserably to address, couldn't get the municipalities on side -- in conjunction with the municipalities, we have been working on a division of authorities. Some of them involve public health, for example, some of them involve various health programs.

In a meeting earlier this year, the municipalities brought forward a proposal to the province. The province has accepted that proposal.

I have great confidence in the municipalities. Having served at the municipal level for many years, I have great confidence. You may not share it, but I have great confidence in the ability of municipalities to meet the health care and total programs of the residents they serve.

Ms Lankin: I guess when you don't know the answer, you just spew out rhetoric. I asked you specifically about mandatory guidelines in public health and you gave me a lot of nonsense about your negotiations with the municipalities etc.

Let me ask you about another area under public health, and I think this is even more significant. This is the downloading of all of the funding for sexual health programs. In this province, we have made great strides in ending what was an epidemic of teen pregnancies. If you look at sexual diseases in the city of Toronto, even still today the highest rates of gonorrhoea or chlamydia are in young people under the age of 20. This is a program that was 100% funded by the province because they recognized the need.

Experts in the area of sexual health, of planned parenthood, of dealing with teens and unwanted pregnancies are so fearful that we are turning the clock back and that we are now going to see a turnback of the clock to before the 1960s when we started to make real progress.

Minister, people want you to make a reversal in your decision. Public health needs to remain at the --

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

Hon David Johnson: It's the view of this government that the process will actually improve delivery of local services because it will allow municipalities to tailor programs to the constituents they serve.

Specifically, the ministry will require municipalities to deliver mandatory programs in the family health area, for example, which includes child health, nutrition, sexual and reproductive health; also in the area of infectious disease control, including AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases; and chronic disease prevention, including heart disease, cancer, and preventable injuries.

The province of Ontario is maintaining a control in terms of programs that have to be delivered in a general sense, but within that umbrella, municipalities will have more leeway to deliver the services tailored to their constituents.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Solicitor General. I know that you very well remember the tragic fire which occurred in the city of Mississauga in March 1995 which took place in the Meadowcroft retirement home. Eight residents died as a result of that tragedy, which involved a number of my own constituents.

Recently the regional coroner held a press conference to review the response to the coroner's inquest recommendations. My question today is, would you like to tell this House what has been done in response to the inquest recommendations to help ensure that this type of unnecessary loss of life does not happen again?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to thank the honourable member for her question. The government has made fire safety a priority, as demonstrated by the introduction and passage of Bill 84, which is dedicated to prevention and public education which are undoubtedly the keys to long-term public safety.

Specifically with respect to public education for seniors, the fire marshal's public fire safety council introduced Older and Wiser, a community-based program which kicked off in June of this year.

With respect to the Meadowcroft inquest recommendations, I understand the presiding coroner is satisfied with the progress made. Almost 90% of the recommendations have either been implemented or are under active consideration. In fact the regional coroner, Dr Peter Clark, has stated, "The agencies and ministries have taken their reviews seriously and the risk of death of vulnerable seniors has been greatly reduced."

We remain committed to enhanced fire safety for all Ontarians and especially those who are vulnerable.

Mrs Marland: The Meadowcroft fire was actually the second fire tragedy in Mississauga in a residential care facility, the first being the Extendicare fire in 1979, as a result of which 26 people died. We now have professional opinions that many of these lives could have been saved in both these fires had there been sprinkler systems installed in these buildings. I'm wondering if you can tell us when changes will be made that will make sprinkler systems mandatory in residential care facilities.

Hon Mr Runciman: I'm pleased to report that work on this issue has been ongoing. Changes to the building code, which is within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, are expected later this year. In coordination with the changes to the building code, which primarily address the requirements for new buildings, the fire marshal has established two committees to develop changes to the fire code which address standards for existing facilities like Meadowcroft.

Again in the words of Dr Clark, "I am most impressed that the proposed changes, especially the changes requiring the installation of automatic sprinklers in institutions, including retirement homes, should go a long way in protecting our vulnerable seniors."

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. During your leadoff speech on second reading of Bill 136, you said:

"The specifics of Bill 136 as they now stand, let me say that they are not etched in stone.... If there are suggestions, from whatever quarter, to improve the bill, we are more than ready to listen and consider them.... Fairness to public sector employers, employees and taxpayers demands that a consistent set of balanced rules be in place to smooth the...restructuring of government services."

We've been hearing, and I'm sure you have too, about the undercutting of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, with its 50 years of experience and almost universal respect throughout the community, except perhaps from this government. In spite of that, you cut their budget by 40%. The bill establishes two new commissions to handle the job. They don't have the experience, the collective knowledge nor the trust which the board has.

Minister, will you consider as one of your options getting rid of these new, costly commissions, both of them, and empower the Labour Relations Board to handle the restructuring process?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would indicate to you, as I indicated in my opening statement, that we are quite willing to take a look at all the suggestions that come forward and are prepared to give them serious consideration. As long as we can continue to meet the government's objectives, the government's objectives being to facilitate the restructuring of the hospitals and the municipalities and the school boards, if we can continue to ensure that each individual employee is going to be treated fairly and equally, we are quite prepared to take a look at all suggestions that come our way.

Mr Patten: I look forward to seeing many amendments come forward on the government side.

You said you've met with the police and the firefighters. You've obviously heard how upset they are with the government's proposal to take away the only tool which ensures balance and fairness in their system of collective bargaining. That, of course, is the provision that arbitrators are mutually agreed upon by both parties.

The provision in Bill 136 isn't temporary, and you know it's permanent. This will change the way business is done in bargaining for over 80,000 essential workers such as police, firefighters, nurses. It's a permanent change.

The system of collective bargaining has worked well. Over 85% of their collective agreements are negotiated freely, with no more than 10% to 15% that have been settled by mutually agreed upon arbitrators. Will you remove the essential workers from the provisions of Bill 136 and allow them to continue to negotiate in their fair and balanced system of interest arbitration?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As I've indicated, we certainly are meeting with the stakeholder groups impacted by Bill 136, obviously the employee groups you've mentioned. We're also going to be meeting with AMO and some of the employer groups.

I would just repeat what I said before. We need to remember the long-term objectives. The objectives of the bill are to ensure that we promote negotiated settlements as opposed to arbitrated settlements. We want to encourage people to get into a real dialogue, a real discussion.

We will certainly again be addressing the concerns that have been raised by the stakeholders. As I say, we want to make sure that we facilitate the restructuring process, that we can continue to provide the needed services to people in Ontario and that each employee is treated fairly. But, yes, we are quite willing to take a look at all the concerns and give them our serious consideration.

CASINOS

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism again. Hopefully, he'll take it this time.

I want to follow up on the billion-dollar tax grab your government is planning, using Ontario charities as a front. It appears you're also going to be responsible for wiping out dozens of the Ontario small businesses that built charity gaming operations here in the first place. By putting the new large permanent casinos into clusters to be operated by big companies, you have shut out the small players.

I've met with some of these small businessmen in my office, and they're angry because your government has stopped listening. Why are you favouring big business, Vegas-linked casino operators, over small Ontario businesses?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm going to refer this question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'm just surprised that the member over there didn't direct it there in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Now you have to answer the question. You made a comment; you now must answer the question.

Hon Mr Saunderson: All I can say to the member for Sault Ste Marie is that we are certainly not favouring big business at all in this procedure. The small businesses will be able to participate, just as any business can. If they meet the criteria, if they can compete successfully, there's no reason why they wouldn't. I don't see why the member has this concern. I think he's uninformed, because he should have been paying attention to what we've been saying.

Mr Martin: That's not what the small businesses are telling me, but what can you expect from a government that believes it has all the answers and never listens to people anyway? We knew you were going to steamroll over labour unions and welfare recipients, but never in our wildest dreams did we think you were going to kick the crap out of small business as well.

You're going to soak $1 billion out of our communities by raising the betting limit and establishing 36 permanent casinos, each with 40 tables and 150 video slot machines, and you're going to close down a number of very viable fledgling small businesses along the way. You're willing to run roughshod over some very viable small businesses in this province. You've handpicked a commission to take the blame for all your decisions. That's your pattern; that's the way you do business.

Why aren't you willing to take the time to listen to the men and women in small businesses in this province and get this casino initiative right from the start?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Once again I'm surprised that the member is not as informed as he should be. Had he been reading the material that has been properly distributed, he would know that charities are going to receive from these operations well in excess of $80 million. The most they've got in the past is $10 million. This is a windfall for the charities.

Also on the subject of small business, no government in recent history has done so much for small business in this province: this July, 5,300 new jobs in this province. Employment is up 124,000 in the last five months. The unemployment rate is down to 8.2%, and that's the lowest it's been in a long, long time. Housing starts are up. That helps small businesses.

This man has not been paying attention. He should be ashamed of himself.

VEHICLE EMISSION TESTING

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. The minister has stated before in this House that smog and air pollution cause about 1,800 premature deaths each year in Ontario. It also takes a toll on the environment by harming vegetation, materials and crops.

On August 22, the minister announced a major initiative to fight smog and air pollution. A number of my constituents have inquired about whether their cars are going to be required to be tested. Can the minister clarify what vehicles are going to be affected by this program?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): This is the first government in this province, even in this country, to implement such an extensive program as Drive Clean. Even though these programs have been known for some period of time, previous governments did not take the opportunity to put forward such an initiative.

Cars and tighter emission standards will improve our air. This program will take effect next year, in 1998. Drive Clean will require the regular testing of tailpipe emissions from passenger cars, light trucks, heavy trucks and buses. Drive Clean will give motorists an opportunity to find out about the environmental performance of their own vehicles. Motorists will be able to avoid the need for future repairs by learning about preventive maintenance. Testing will cost no more than $30 but could be less than $30. This is a tremendous program for the quality of air in Ontario.

Mr Jim Brown: Smog is a problem that affects everyone, but my constituents are particularly concerned about this issue because my riding is in the GTA. My constituents are looking for fast action. Could the minister clarify to the House and my constituents what the specific time line and details are for the implementation of the Drive Clean initiative?

Hon Mr Sterling: This program is going to take place in the greater Toronto area and Hamilton-Wentworth first because that's where it will make the greatest difference in the quality of air. However, if other areas would like this program earlier, all they have to do is have their municipalities send a resolution to us and we will implement this program in other areas of the province if it's technically feasible.

Next year this will begin with trucks and buses across the province for next summer, the summer of 1998, and in the fall of 1998 it will start for automobiles in the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth area. It will expand to other areas of the province as we become more familiar with the program, as we work out any of the kinks in the program. But as I've already said, we are willing to put this out to other areas at an earlier date if that is technically feasible.

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

Hon Mr Sterling: We think that Drive Clean will be to the air quality as the blue box was to solid waste in Ontario. This is a tremendous environmental step for the people of Ontario and the government of Ontario and we are very proud of this --

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I certainly feel much better hearing that announcement again from the minister.

Minister, I want to ask you about the issue of recycling in Ontario and the regulation. As you know, in view of the Plastimet fire, there have been calls from the fire marshal's office, from all sides, to strengthen and toughen up recycling laws in Ontario and their controls. So I was surprised to see a document entitled "Responsive Environmental Protection: Technical Annex," put out by your ministry, in which it states that you will look at and consider deregulating hazardous waste materials such as batteries, thermostats, photo-processing waste, circuit boards, waste oils sent for refining.

In the document it says, "These changes would allow recyclable materials to be treated as raw materials and to be exempt from waste requirements for transportation, handling and approvals." That would mean that if these recommendations are adopted, these items such as thermostats, batteries and waste oil, could be put in landfill sites, could be treated without any type of certificate of compliance.

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

Mr Agostino: Minister, can you stand up today and assure the House that you will discard these recommendations and have no plans in deregulating --

The Speaker: Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): We had a very difficult fire in the city of Hamilton some time ago, a fire that started, evidently, because there wasn't adequate fire protection in that particular building. As a result of that we are very concerned about the handling of recycling material, and my ministry is working along with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to try to come up with a better answer in dealing with recycling material.

With regard to the other material, hazardous waste, which the member is bringing forward, we are looking for new methods and new ways of dealing with these hazardous materials. Up to this point in time we are not satisfied that they have been dealt with in a controlled enough manner, and therefore we are looking for different suggestions to deal with those. We expect to deal with those in our regulatory reform package. We are getting --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: We are getting the buy-in of industry to become involved in this and therefore we are looking to improve the system for handling hazardous waste in this province.

Mr Agostino: In view of the Plastimet fire, I am absolutely amazed that the minister would not stand in his place and say that this government has no plans to deregulate and treat hazardous waste such as batteries, thermostats and waste oils simply as non-hazardous material. I can't believe, Minister, that you're not denying and that you would not outright dismiss the possibility that this document here, your ministry document, is accurate and that you have plans to go ahead and do this for the sake of helping your friends in the private sector and helping companies.

What this would mean, if this regulation goes through that you have not denied today you're looking at, is that companies can set up recycling operations for batteries, for waste oils, for thermostats, items that would have lead and mercury. One litre of waste oil would contaminate one million litres of water.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Agostino: This is astounding, that you would not today assure us you're not looking at this. In view of the fire, in view of what has happened across Ontario, can you stand up and assure people --

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, thanks. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: When this government came in, we found that in many of the cases, while there were regulations in place, what was happening is that hazardous products in this province were not being dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner. Therefore, we were looking for new and innovative ways to deal with these hazardous wastes to ensure that they would be brought back to central depots and that they would be transferred under control from those depots to a proper repository to be disposed of in the most meaningful manner.

As well, we were interested in bringing many of these products back into recycling into new products.

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Sterling: This is a regulatory reform discussion paper and we are looking --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker: That's within the rules.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the undersigned residents living in the city of Thunder Bay in northwestern Ontario are in need of a new regional acute care hospital situated in the city of Thunder Bay to provide the said residents with quality health care services in a modern and up-to-date acute care hospital; and

"Whereas the partial renovation and restructuring of the existing Port Arthur General Hospital, a 65-year-old outdated and antiquated hospital building, proposed by the health services review commission and the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario will not be suitable, adequate or proper to provide such quality health care services to the said residents; and

"Whereas the undersigned residents endorse and support the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital and the trustees of the hospital board and their vision of a new centrally located hospital to serve the northwestern Ontario region;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reverse the decision and direction of the health services review commission and the Minister of Health to have all acute care services for the city of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario region delivered from the renovated and restructured site of Port Arthur General Hospital and to endorse and approve capital funding to build a new centrally located acute care hospital in the city of Thunder Bay."

These petitions are signed by several hundred residents in my community, and I've affixed my own signature in full agreement.

CANCER PREVENTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have another petition which was signed by people who were at the breast cancer international conference which I attended in Kingston, in July I believe. It reads:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

"Whereas cancer claims in excess of 20,000 lives annually in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas cancer treatment costs Ontario taxpayers in excess of $1 billion annually; and

"Whereas the best way to fight cancer or any other disease is through preventive measures; and

"Whereas the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer has advised the government to set realistic and realizable targets for phasing out the release of environmental toxins; and

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly on April 18, 1996, passed a resolution to that effect with support from all three parties;

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

"The Premier and the Minister of Health should immediately implement the April 18 resolution and strike a working committee to begin the task of setting realistic targets for the phase-out of persistent bio-accumulative environmental toxins."

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

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 308 people. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "Whereas the Ontario government is proposing to completely change the structure of relations between the province and municipalities without any public consultation with Ontario; and

"The restructuring proposes to download on to municipalities the cost of public transportation and essential social services like welfare and long-term care for seniors and people with chronic illnesses;

"The restructuring takes away the power to levy tax on school boards and subsequently any real power over the schools and curricula;

"The actions of the government are not representative of the promise to keep funding at the existing level and do not recognize that different communities don't have the same resources to absorb new burdens and are creating some inequities in access to essential services;

"The government does not show interest in consultation with the population and does not take into account the reaction of the population; it represents a threat to democracy;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, are hereby expressing non-confidence against the government of the province of Ontario because we are concerned with the inequities of the life of the province and the wellbeing of the children, neighbours and communities."

I've also affixed my signature.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of Ontario. It states:

"We, the undersigned concerned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for the public to have the right to be informed about proposed bills and that there should be enough time for public hearings about proposed bills;

"We believe the opposition party MPPs should have adequate time to study bills proposed, to have a chance to suggest amendments;

"We therefore do not agree with the proposed ruling of the Ontario Conservatives that they can pass a bill only two weeks after introducing it and introduce two bills during the same two-week period" --

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am reminded the standing orders say that we cannot read petitions. We must only paraphrase them and make reference to them. I wonder if you could direct the member in the future to not read entire speeches into the record.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): The standing orders read as follows, on page 30: "Presentation in House. Member to summarize contents:" "A member may present a petition in the House during routine proceedings under the proceeding `Petitions.' The member may make a brief statement summarizing the contents of the petition and indicating the number of signatures attached thereto."

I find the member's statement appropriate.

Mr Wildman: In that case, Speaker, I will summarize this petition as saying that these 12 people find the rule changes to be --

The Acting Speaker: Order. The Chair recognizes the member for Peterborough.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understood you just read an order that said a member, in presenting a petition, may summarize as well as indicate the number of signatures. I'm not sure that you indicated that precluded reading the petition as well as summarizing it.

The Acting Speaker: It very clearly indicates that the member may summarize and may read a brief statement. I accept the statement from the member for Algoma.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Mr Speaker, I believe in some of these petitions that some of the points that are being addressed are very important. If we can't read them correctly, we've got a problem in this House.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You want to read this?

Mr Stewart: Yes, probably.

Mr Wildman: Wait a minute. You're supposed to summarize it.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Yeah, Mr Gilchrist --

Mr Stewart: Mr Gilchrist can do what he wishes to. I'd like --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Order. Do you have a petition, the member for Peterborough?

Mr Stewart: Yes, I do have a petition that I would like to read, sir.

"Over half the people of Ontario are women. Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, women-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health."

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I'd be happy to present a

summary of the petition I have which is presented by a significant number of my constituents who are calling to secure justice for all with prejudice towards none and with compassion for the weak and powerless, and who are urging all those in leadership positions to share their shock at the fact that there would be new casinos introduced across this province without the promised referendum and who are appalled by the fact that we would have new lottery terminals introduced to our community without the consent of the citizens. They have asked that all efforts to install such video lottery terminals in our community be resisted.

I present that petition on their behalf.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In light of the concern of the member for Scarborough East, I will summarize. I have a petition which asks the Ontario government to protect the hunting heritage of the province to continue with the bear hunt.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): In accordance with my normal practice and in accordance with rule 38(b), I'll summarize the petition I have, signed by approximately 88 residents of Ontario. It confirms that women now have the lawful right to go topless in public and that the federal government has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate public nudity. It also respectfully petitions the government of Ontario to pass a bill empowering municipalities to enact bylaws governing dress code, and I present it today.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Many people across Ontario are concerned about the potential privatization of TVOntario and the campaign has begun. I will read the petition:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario/TFO is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVO as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold open and honest public consultation with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVO/TFO."

I'm proud to sign my name to it.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins and furans as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire; and

As I'm in support of this, I add my name to it.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I have more petitions relating to the issue of toplessness in Ontario, signed by members in my riding from Kennedy Road Tabernacle and Bramalea Baptist Church.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

I'd be happy to affix my name as well.

GASOLINE PRICES

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

"Whereas since Mike Harris took office gasoline prices have increased on an average of a dramatic 10 cents a litre, which is over 45 cents a gallon; and

"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and ministers within the cabinet of his government, while in opposition, expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could take action under Ontario law and pass predatory gas pricing legislation which would protect consumers, but instead seems intent on looking after the interests of the big oil companies;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."

I affix my signature to this petition because I'm in complete agreement with its contents.

PAY EQUITY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced Bill 136; and

"Whereas Bill 136 strips entitlements to employee status and therefore pay equity rights for home child care providers; and

"Whereas home child care providers are predominantly female; and

"Whereas home child care providers are one of the lowest-paid groups of workers in Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136 and its implications for the Pay Equity Act."

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I add my name to theirs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES

Mr Carroll moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 152,

An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à améliorer les services, à accroître l'efficience et à procurer des avantages aux contribuables en éliminant le double emploi et en redistribuant les responsabilités entre le gouvernement provincial et les municipalités dans divers secteurs et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme «Qui fait quoi» du gouvernement.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I'm pleased today to begin second reading debate of Bill 152, the Services Improvement Act, Mr Speaker. I'd like to advise you upfront that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Scarborough East.

This legislation allows us to move ahead with changes that will provide better services at a lower cost to taxpayers. In May of this year, following extensive input from our municipal partners, the government announced a substantial change to the provincial-municipal relationship based on proposals submitted by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

We agreed to cut residential education property taxes in half and to take on additional responsibility for funding education. This would take pressure off the property tax and give municipalities additional room to fund other services that are best delivered locally.

The changes we announced, our Who Does What package, would bring education costs under control and lead to better services at lower cost to taxpayers. On August 6 we released the preliminary figures that showed the estimated costs of the Who Does What reforms. These numbers are meant as a tool to help municipalities to estimate their future costs and assist them in their decision-making process. They are not the final product. There will be further revisions as decisions are made. What is important is that municipalities do their part to keep costs down and continue to find savings and efficiencies.

For several months now, two implementation teams have been hard at work to make sure the transition is a smooth one. One co-chaired by myself and Terry Mundell, former president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, is looking at social and community health services. The other, co-chaired by Mr Mundell and the member for Oxford, is looking at all the other Who Does What changes. A group of chief administrative officers from the municipal sector is also working with provincial staff on the calculation of the financial impacts of Who Does What.

This legislation is another step in the implementation process for Who Does What. It would give municipalities responsibility for program delivery and funding in whole or in part for a number of local services effective January 1, 1998. Allow me to touch briefly on the changes that this bill will make.

The legislation includes measures that would improve and strengthen the system of social housing in Ontario. Social housing is one of the community services needed by low-income people that can be better provided at the community level. Social housing should be provided locally. It should also be integrated with welfare and other health services delivery at the community level to make the entire system work better and more efficiently.

This legislation is the first stage of a three-stage process. It would allow the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to bill the costs of social housing to upper-tier municipalities, separated cities and district welfare boards in northern Ontario as of January 1, 1998. This approach will ensure simplicity and it will be consistent with billing practices for other services, such as social assistance. The second stage, which is also well under way and involves discussions with municipalities and stakeholders, is on the reform and devolution of the social housing system.

The third stage will involve a period of between two and three years, when the administration of the social housing system will be gradually transferred to municipalities. We expect to complete the transfer of the administrative responsibilities of this new improved system to municipalities by the year 2000.

This transfer of responsibilities makes sense. We want to make sure that social housing is more efficient and effective and we want to improve access for people who need help with their housing.

I want to stress two things that the proposed bill will not do. It will not have any impact whatsoever on the tenants of social housing. Second, it will not have any impact whatsoever on the operating agreements between housing providers and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

As of January 1, municipalities would assume 100% responsibility for public health programs. These services will continue to be delivered locally where they can be tailored to meet local needs while -- and this is very important -- maintaining provincial standards.

This legislation will provide direction on how municipalities will fund programs and share costs in multi-municipality health units. Mandatory health programs will continue to be delivered by local boards of health. The province will continue to set program standards for each program and will monitor and enforce the standards. These mandatory programs are currently under review and consultations with stakeholders are taking place. The final version should be available to the municipalities and their boards of health prior to January 1998.

Municipalities will have added flexibility in delivering mandatory public health programs as long as provincial standards are met. The three key programs that municipalities will be required to deliver by legislation are chronic disease prevention, infectious disease control, and family and child health.

The province will retain responsibility for overall disease surveillance and provide vaccines for immunization programs. In addition, the province will continue to fund certain programs, such as the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program, which will help children at risk and provide them with needed community supports.

Should this House approve this legislation, municipalities will assume 100% funding responsibility for land ambulance services beginning January 1998. Funding land ambulances gives municipalities more flexibility to look at integrating their emergency services to better serve their communities. It gives them the opportunity to find ways to better integrate services, such as firefighting, police and ambulance, or ambulance with other health and social services. The program administration responsibilities of the land ambulance services will be transferred to municipalities by the year 2000. The province will continue to regulate and set standards for the delivery of land ambulance services.

This government will continue to work with municipalities to ensure that public health programs and land ambulance services remain accessible and consistent for all Ontarians.

Children are a priority of this government. We have already increased available spending on child care to up to $600 million, the highest level in the history of this province. As part of the May 6 budget, we announced a new child care tax credit that will use $40 million of the total child care budget to assist lower-income working families. This means we are helping 90,000 Ontario families and 125,000 children.

We are proposing to amend the Day Nurseries Act to make it mandatory for municipalities to cost-share and manage the delivery of child care services. As previously announced as part of the Who Does What initiative, all child care services would be cost-shared 80% by the province and 20% by municipalities. Municipalities will be responsible for cost-sharing all child care services, not just fee subsides but wage subsidies, resource centres and special needs resourcing. This is a positive change that will benefit all children.

This legislation makes administrative changes to the child care system. The streamlining supports the local development and delivery of child care service. By building and expanding on this experience, which is already in place at the local level, these changes will simplify what is now a complex process. Municipalities already have experience in the fee subsidies area. This bill uses and builds on that experience.

We believe that communities are in the best position to design a system that meets their needs and the needs of their clients. However, we realize at the same time there must be province-wide standards and expectations.

This community-based approach to child care, and indeed to all social services, will allow the local community to better meet local needs. These changes will help us bring sense to the current tangle of social and community health services. We are committed to continue working with our municipal colleagues to create an effective system that better meets the needs of children and families.

The Who Does What initiative recognized that GO Transit service primarily meets local and regional transit needs. It recommended that this responsibility should be transferred to the municipalities served by GO Transit. The benefit will be that GO Transit will be more accountable to local communities. The delivery of GO Transit at the municipal level will also encourage greater integration of transit services across the greater Toronto area.

We are currently exploring a number of options for the structure of the municipal governance mechanism of GO Transit, such as the Greater Toronto Services Board. This legislation proposes to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act to enable municipal funding of GO Transit for the interim period until a replacement municipal governance mechanism is in place.

Currently, taxpayers from every region of Ontario subsidize GO Transit's operating and capital deficit by approximately $110 million a year. The proposed legislation would create a mechanism for these costs to be shared by the regions that benefit from GO: the regions of Peel, York, Durham, Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth and the city of Toronto.

My colleague the Minister of Transportation would consult with the affected municipalities to develop a fair cost-sharing formula. We intend this to be a simple, equitable method of cost-sharing to allow GO Transit to meet its capital and operating requirements. Regional chairs who currently sit on the board of directors will continue to have a say in the operation of GO during the interim period.

This legislation proposes that the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act regulating smaller onsite sewage systems be transferred from the Ministry of Environment and Energy to the building code, which is administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Municipalities would be responsible for the approval and inspections of smaller onsite systems. This would streamline service through a one-window approach for homeowners and builders. The building industry and the public would only have to deal with one permit, one code, one appeals process and one ministry for smaller on-lot septic systems.

This would reduce red tape and the regulatory burden on business, a worthwhile objective I'm sure all members of the House agree with. It would simplify municipal enforcement and provide opportunities for cost saving through the coordination of approvals and inspections. Large-scale septic systems, communal systems and hauled sewage systems would continue to be a provincial responsibility.

Given ongoing discussions regarding northern service delivery, responsibility for enforcing standards for onsite sewage systems in northern municipalities and unorganized territories will generally remain with existing delivery agents.

The rules governing septics would be strengthened to protect public health and the environment.

The government will continue to work with the municipal sector through the provincial-municipal implementation team and the social and community health services implementation team and others to ensure a smooth transition to the new provincial-municipal responsibilities.

Our government has long stated its intention to end the confusion that surrounds who is responsible for what. We have long stated we would work to eliminate waste and duplication. We have long stated we believe the level of government that delivers the service is the best level of government to operate it.

This bill takes the next step in implementing the Who Does What package. It provides a legislative framework for the funding arrangements we outlined on May 1 and the preliminary changes in municipal costs and revenues announced on August 6. These changes will lead to better services and more efficient and accountable government. We are working together with municipalities towards a common goal of less burden on the taxpayer, and that will only benefit the people of Ontario.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I am pleased to follow up on my colleague from Chatham-Kent, who has done a tremendous job of laying out the framework of this bill, an important initiative that was first announced in January this year.

You will recall when we first put out the whole issue of the transfer of services between municipalities and the provincial government, when we first set out to recognize and address once and for all the fact that there is far too much duplication, that there is far too much waste, that there is far too little direction to be applied to a number of important issues, because there were too many chefs. Bill 152 is simply the legislative framework that follows up on literally a year's worth of discussion now, all of 1997.

You will also recall that back in April, as a result of working together with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the municipalities themselves came back with a response to our original proposals and they themselves have set out the framework that is now embodied in this bill.

I am very proud of the fact that we have consulted, as my colleague pointed out, through two transition teams staffed over 80% by municipal politicians, people who are expert in their fields, people who know best how to manage local affairs, and as a result of their feedback and their input, we now have before us a plan that I think most reasonable people at both levels of government agree will work.

This bill reflects very much that spirit of dialogue and consultation, and while there still may be a few minor points to iron out, given the Premier's commitment that this whole process will be revenue-neutral, I think it is safe to say that municipalities across this province are falling in line in supporting this bill, as we hoped they would, and as well they should, given that it was their own representatives who have done these negotiations.

We need look no further than the mayoralty race here in the city of Toronto, where one of the candidates has already come out and said that he not only agrees with the perception but that the reality will be, if he is successful, that the city of Toronto will not see any tax increases. We see the same thing from the former MPP Bob Chiarelli, who is running for regional chair down in Ottawa-Carleton. He has made a similar commitment; in fact, he has gone on the record a number of times and indicated that it will be revenue-neutral. He believes that.

He absolutely has committed that it will work in his municipality, and if he is elected, he has said that there will not be a tax impact based on what we're doing here today.

As a result of all these efforts over the last nine months, we now have before us a series of amendments to various statutes, all of which have a common theme, and that theme is to determine which level of government is most appropriate for the delivery of a specific service.

I'd like to take my time this afternoon and deal with the most important aspect that touches the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. That would be the social housing transfer. I think it has been obvious for a long time that the social housing system in Ontario is broken. It's not something that started in the last year or two.

The fact of the matter is that for far too many years there has been a lack of attention, there has been a top-down approach to management style; yet the consensus among tenants, housing providers, municipalities and the province has been that there is not only a need to reform the system, that perhaps most important, there is a need to have local views reflected in what happens with social housing in each community.

That is why we asked experts in the field to come up with recommendations, and as has been the case from day one in our government, we have consulted, we have used expert opinions, and I am very proud of the fact that the Advisory Council on Social Housing Reform we established will be tabling their report later this afternoon and they'll come up with a number of recommendations, I'm sure. All of them and all of us agree that we want to make the system simpler, more accountable, more efficient and more effective as we transfer it to the municipalities.

We believe that social housing is one of those community services that is best addressed at the local level. So when municipalities take control of the system at some point next year, we want them to have a system that is less costly and more efficient. We understand the municipalities want flexibility, and we will carefully consider the recommendations of the advisory council on areas of provincial interest and how they will impact as part of the transfer.

However, one thing we are not going to budge on will be the setting of provincial standards to ensure that fair and equitable social housing services remain available throughout this province regardless of the municipality. Reform of social housing will not result in a loss or reduction in the number of affordable housing units in this province, and we're also ensuring that low-income tenants will continue to receive their rental subsidies.

We're quite dismayed that previous governments over the last 10 years did allow housing stock to deteriorate. This government is not prepared to allow that deterioration to continue. Our government is spending $215 million to repair social housing buildings, over and above the $100 million in annual funding for ongoing repairs, and that includes restoring the capital reserve funds of non-profits and co-ops which were drained by the former NDP government, just like they drained the northern heritage fund.

Just to come back again, the Advisory Council on Social Housing Reform was created back in June, with a mandate to recommend reforms to the financing, administration and regulation of social housing in Ontario prior to the transfer to the new municipalities.

The seven council members were chosen for their expertise in the areas of finance, property management, federal housing programs and management of private non-profits and municipal non-profits. The council also received advice from representatives from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, as well as the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, the Co-operative Housing Federation, the Ontario Housing Corp and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The council has met throughout the summer and heard deputations from 20 different groups representing all aspects of the social housing system.

It also had a meeting with elected representatives of municipalities as well as municipal staff to hear their views on the subject.

The report, as I say, was issued at 2 o'clock today. It should be noted that there was not full agreement on all issues, and that's hardly surprising. However, a broad consensus was achieved, which is important when one considers just how diverse an issue social housing is.

It's important to note that the council did not consider the negotiations with the federal government. The province has indicated that it supports the federal principles, and the decision to transfer funding and administration to municipalities does not change this position. The province will continue its negotiations with the federal government on this understanding, and we'll provide copies of the advisory council report to our federal colleagues.

Municipalities' main concerns with social housing are the costs, particularly capital repair costs and interest rate liability, as well as the timing for transfer and the overall responsibility to take care of the housing stock. They also expect to have a say in the program operation if they're funding the service. The advisory council's report only addresses the cost concern and the pay-for-say component.

There will be no formal consultation on this report, because we believe it to be a technical submission. The government is interested in hearing the response and reaction of the various stakeholders and we'll be happy to receive any written responses the people may wish to make.

I'd like to take a minute to talk about the background behind the work that has been done by the advisory council and in fact even predates the whole issue of Who Does What. Much has been said about the condition and the cost of social housing. Over the years, there's no doubt that the costs for capital repairs have increased, as well as the operating costs of many of these buildings. In fact, the government is funding ongoing capital repairs while streamlining operations to improve efficiency and reduce costs.

These measures should ensure that social housing being transferred to municipalities is in the best possible shape and is being run as efficiently as possible. Here are just a few examples.

The province recently announced that it is investing, on a one-time basis, $215 million to repair aging social housing stock. Non-profit and cooperative housing sponsors will get a $173-million boost to their capital reserve funds. The balance of the funding, $42 million, is targeted for Ontario Housing Corp, for capital repairs and upgrades.

Over the past five years, OHC has spent $513 million on capital improvements to its public housing stock. OHC recently developed an asset management system to report on the general condition of its stock and project its five-year capital funding requirements. This system will enable OHC to properly allocate the additional $42 million in capital funding. A total of $110 million will be spent on capital improvements for OHC buildings in 1997 alone.

I would remind members opposite that it's a somewhat slippery slope they get on with the suggestion that the housing stock is in such neglected shape that the tenants should be overly concerned, because municipalities currently -- and nothing is changed by this law -- have a responsibility via their property standards officers to make sure every building, regardless of who owns it in this province, meets health and safety standards, make sure the elevators work, make sure all the fire equipment is in place and operational. If that isn't the case --

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): You fired all the inspectors, for God's sake. Who's going to check now?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Order.

Mr Gilchrist: If the harpy opposite allows me to continue, if that isn't the case, with the greatest respect, the municipalities know that is really their obligation, and nothing in this bill changes that.

More to the point, it certainly belies the fact that over the last two years OHC has increased the amount it's spending on capital improvements. As a member who has one of the highest densities of public housing in the province in his riding, I'm very confident, having toured all these buildings, that health and safety concerns are being met, and in many respects the dollars we're allocating now will go towards -- I don't want to say "unnecessary," but perhaps in some cases even more esoteric improvements, and by and large the health and safety issues are really not part of this debate at all.

In 1996 the province also instituted a benchmarking system for applying cost reductions to non-profit and cooperative housing providers. Using this system, inefficient providers had their budgets reduced to a greater extent than the lower-cost, more efficient providers. This more equitable method of funding was also applied in 1997; however, no overall reduction was implemented. Higher-cost providers were constrained, while the funding was provided to lower-cost providers.

In other words, there is a tremendous incentive for cooperatives and non-profits to operate as efficiently as possible to ensure that their funding stream is maintained and quite frankly to serve as a benchmark to prove to all other co-ops and non-profits that it can be done.

I'm sure all of us have examples in our ridings of cooperatives that run very efficiently. I can think of one in my riding that gets the grand total of $25,000 a year as a subsidy, almost nothing. Out of that, they run undoubtedly, at least from my perspective, the most attractive, the best-maintained, the co-op with by far the greatest sense of community spirit of all the co-ops in my riding. So I know it can be done. We hope this benchmarking system will ensure that best practices will lead to all the other cooperatives following the lead of their own colleagues and delivering services as efficiently and effectively as possible.

The province has also implemented tougher measures for dealing with housing projects that are in difficulty. In recent years, the province has transferred several non-profit housing projects to other providers, emphasizing that non-profit groups must adhere strictly to program requirements or risk losing their buildings. Again, these are all created under certain contracts. I don't think it's inappropriate for the taxpayers of the province to expect all parties to honour their commitments.

If there is a case where the partner in a non-profit or co-op has not met their financial obligations, I should also note the federal government has moved to deal very directly in those cases where there has been an absence of fiscal responsibility.

Significant savings are also being achieved through refinancing the entire non-profit housing portfolio. The ministry has put a process in place that requires financial institutions to compete on mortgage renewals. Substantial savings have been found because of lower interest rates, literally totalling in the hundreds of millions of dollars. As part of the reforms to the social housing program, the province is reviewing various options that will lower the risks associated with increased interest rates in the future. Where appropriate, the province has been locking in low interest rates on projects to minimize risk over a longer term.

In the public housing portfolio, savings have also been found through operational and cost efficiencies. Measures include re-engineering operations to streamline and reduce duplication, implementing energy efficiency measures to the extent we can and improving property management services, all the while reducing controllable expenses and implementing an asset management process which identifies and allocates capital funding based on the need and the condition of the portfolio.

Reform of the entire process should ensure streamlined administration, eliminate duplication and overlap and increase efficiencies. Municipalities will have the flexibility to find savings through better business practices that address the needs of the people living in their own towns. All of this will help to achieve the most important goal of all: providing better service and better housing for people in need.

As well, undoubtedly the largest component of our social housing would be the Ontario Housing Corp, so I think it's appropriate that I take a couple of minutes to give you some background on the Ontario Housing Corp and what exactly will be happening to its various holdings.

Currently Ontario Housing Corp owns the province's 84,000 units of public housing, making it the largest landlord in Ontario and indeed the country. OHC also administers approximately 21,000 rent supplement units in which OHC subsidizes housing units in private, non-profit or co-op buildings, and subsidizes approximately 15,500 additional units owned by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co Ltd.

OHC is a provincial government agency established under the Ontario Housing Corporation Act. It currently receives its funding from two sources: rent from the tenants and subsidies from various levels of government, primarily provincial and federal.

The OHC board of directors is appointed by the provincial government and is accountable to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The board appoints a chief executive officer and a general manager to manage the corporation.

Fifty-four local housing authorities, though, located throughout the province are responsible for the day-to-day management of OHC's holdings, including here in Metro Toronto. It gets somewhat confusing because the local housing authority is called the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, not to be confused with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co. These housing authorities are OHC's agents. The proposed Services Improvement Act would not change the relationship between the OHCs and the local housing authorities.

OHC provides housing for all types of low-income households, including families, senior citizens and single people. Its housing is made available on the basis of need and OHC houses many of Ontario's neediest households, with tenants paying rent based on income rather than on the size or the type of housing provided.

I should remind you that public housing is owned and managed by the province, just to differentiate that from non-profit housing and co-ops which are owned and managed by community groups or municipal providers. In the past two years OHC has focused on taking a more businesslike approach to its assets and its service delivery. While there is still a lot of work to be done, OHC has been getting more value for each taxpayer dollar by finding efficiencies within the organization. When the government decided that the delivery of public housing would be administered at the municipal level, OHC refocused its internal restructuring initiative on streamlining operations to prepare for this transfer.

What is OHC doing to maintain its housing stock? As I mentioned earlier, over the past five years alone, $513 million has been spent on capital improvements to its public housing stock. As a general rule, all these buildings were built before 1975 and clearly are at the midpoint of their economic life cycle in most cases. OHC recently developed an asset management system to report on the general condition of its housing stock and project its five-year capital funding requirements.

This way it will know and will be able to demonstrate to the tenants as well as to the taxpayers that the dollars we've put in this year to top up to a total of $110 million will be spent on capital improvements appropriately.

What about the MTHA in particular here in Toronto? Following the KPMG review of the operations of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority assets, immediate steps were taken by MTHA to prioritize their work and remedy the identified problems. The high-priority work has been completed or is almost complete in all the buildings. Five million dollars was spent to accelerate fire code retrofit work and to replace elevators, one of the major deficiencies identified in the KPMG report. A total of $26 million was spent on capital improvements to the MTHA portfolio just last year alone.

If that wasn't good enough, for 1997 MTHA has a budget of $45.4 million allocated for capital work as part of the recent provincial budget.

In total across the province, while MTHA is the largest provider, the social housing system, over and above public housing, has a total of 274,000 units, a staggering number. I mentioned already there were 84,000 units owned directly by the province. There are 57,000 municipal non-profit housing units owned by the municipalities, obviously, and 74,000 non-profit housing units owned directly by private non-profit corporations.

There are 41,000 non-profit cooperative housing units owned directly by the co-op members themselves; 13,000 units are owned by the private sector in which the tenants' rent is subsidized by the province's rent supplement system; and there are 5,000 units developed under the rural native and urban native programs and owned by aboriginal groups. I'm pleased to note that the largest urban native program is located in the riding of Scarborough East, a fine housing project that goes by the name of Gabriel Dumont.

The federal and provincial governments each have a role in social housing. Social housing is funded and administered by both levels of government. The federal government unilaterally funds non-profits and cooperatives which are administered and controlled under contracts they signed, and that totals about 48,000 units. The Ontario Housing Corp is administered exclusively by the province, but we cost-share in some cases between the province and the federal government, and again to remind you, that's 84,000 of the units.

Federal-provincial non-profits and cooperatives are administered by the province but cost-shared again between the federal and provincial governments, for a total of 49,000 units. Provincial unilateral non-profits and co-ops are administered and funded solely by us, and that's 51,000 units. The remaining units include rent supplement and federal non-profits, privately owned, rural native and urban native, and again, in most cases, the funding is shared between the two levels of government.

In fact, in it's various incarnations, there have been something approaching almost 20 different housing programs over the years, which I think makes it very clear that this is an issue that needs consolidation. It needed a review from the bottom up, and I'm very pleased that over these past two years we have conducted just such a review and, as a result of that, have determined that municipalities are by far best capable of delivering on this important social component.

Again, just to highlight the difference between public housing and cooperative or non-profit housing, primarily it's different ownership. Public housing is owned, in most cases, directly by the provincial government,

whereas the non-profits and the cooperatives are owned and operated by non-profit corporations. Our involvement is solely in writing a cheque, as is the federal government's. But the day-to-day administration, the day-to-day operation, decisions about repairs and ongoing maintenance, decisions about any improvements or the purchase of any new equipment would be made exclusively by the non-profit or co-op board.

There's a very different history behind the two forms of public housing as well. Public housing was first built by municipalities. That's a fact that has been forgotten in this debate. In the 1960s the Ontario Housing Corp was created and took over title to what had previously been municipally owned housing buildings. It also took over the role for all future development and the setting of standards for public housing in this province.

In the mid-1970s, as a result of a report commissioned in 1973, a decision was made to cease building these large blocks of public housing that in many cases had not delivered on the true potential, had not delivered on what I think anyone with a social conscience would agree was the necessary integration of people who are living in those buildings. Instead, in some cases, they became ghettos. The sheer density o