Ontario Hansard — 14 May 1997 (36th Parliament, 1st Session)

1997-05-14

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

May 14, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L191 - Wed 14 May 1997 / Mer 14 Mai 1997

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

SEEKERS GIRLS VOLLEYBALL CLUB

TAXATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

POLICE WEEK

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

ORDER AND DECORUM IN CHAMBER

PARENT FINDERS

BUDGET

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRUCKING SAFETY

FIRE SAFETY

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

STUDENT OPPORTUNITY TRUST FUND

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

HAMILTON HARBOUR

JUSTICE SYSTEM

SELF-MANAGEMENT

RENT REGULATION

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

SÉCURITÉ LORS D'UN INCENDIE / FIRE SAFETY

CHILD CARE

FIRE SAFETY

CHARITABLE GAMING

FIRE SAFETY

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS

FIRE SAFETY

TELEPHONE SERVICES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by her own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the year ending 31 March 1998 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): When the people in northern Ontario talk about last week's provincial budget, I can assure you that the major topic of discussion is not the tax-cutting policies of the Harris government. The reason is that the people in the north were actually hit with a massive tax increase instead.

The government would like the imposition of a new $37 vehicle registration fee to be treated as a minor item that should draw little attention, but our research on what this tax grab will cost northerners is nothing less than shocking. For the district of Thunder Bay, this new tax will cost residents from Thunder Bay to Marathon and Thunder Bay to Longlac $4.5 million every year. In Kenora-Rainy River, the tax grab takes $2 million from our pockets.

The Minister of Northern Development would like to see this new tax as a way for us to pay our fair share for the cost of road improvements in the north. The minister should be ashamed of those comments. He knows full well that we pay our fair share every day at the pump when we fill up our tanks. The cost of gasoline is often 10 cents a litre, or more, more expensive in the north, and when you calculate that 25% of that fill-up goes directly to the provincial treasury down here at Queen's Park, it's clear that our contribution to road improvements and maintenance in the province is higher than anywhere else.

The fact is that the only way we would ever accept such a fee would be if the government equalized gas prices across the province. Until that happens, let me tell the Premier one thing: The people of northern Ontario will not forget this totally unjustified tax grab on northerners.

SEEKERS GIRLS VOLLEYBALL CLUB

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I'm proud today to bring to the attention of the House the accomplishments of the Seekers Girls Volleyball Club of the Hamilton area. They are not only the Ontario champions of 1997, but they are the gold medal winners for the eastern Canadian championships and we're very, very proud of their accomplishments.

The midget team roster for 1996-97 is Stephanie Car, Sarah Collins, Lauren Cosentino, Lisa Cosentino, Maria DiLivio, Katherine Dymkowski, Agnes Jankowski, Beth Lawlor, Lori Maloney, Laura Miller, Sarah Prior, Sarah Vinall and Melissa Whaley. The coaches are Frank Lilliman, Mike Campanella, Stu McCarthy, Rob Luciani, George Vinall, Norm Adie, Andy Burns and Jerry Crapsi.

I know all members of the House would want to pay tribute to these young people and their accomplishments.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I know sometimes I allow some leeway on those, particularly when they're non-political statements.

TAXATION

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today and address an issue which is of tremendous importance to the people of my riding of Scarborough Centre. That issue is high taxes.

High taxes, overspending and deficit financing do not create lasting jobs. In fact, they are all barriers to job creation. They are all trademarks of the previous Liberal and NDP governments. I'm glad to say that our government is following through on its pledge to bring real change to Ontario, change that will bring jobs, smaller yet smarter government and less spending.

The plan of the Mike Harris government to revitalize Ontario is working. The 1997 Ontario budget continues the implementation of that plan. The new budget features 20 job-creating tax cuts, along with major reinvestments in several priority areas. The province needs tax relief to stimulate the economy, to be competitive with other jurisdictions and to create new jobs.

Our government is turning the economy around. Ontario is responding with jobs, growth and a renewed confidence and optimism. Focusing on priorities and controlling government spending have also allowed us to reinvest in areas like health care, where we are putting the patient first, education and community safety.

Our plan is working. It lays the foundation for a better tomorrow by investing in the future today. It also allows Ontarians to keep more of their hard-earned dollars.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): What does it say about education in Ontario when a group of parents in Oakville launches a $150,000 fund-raising drive to buy computers for the two elementary schools their children attend?

To me, it says that we are well on our way to two-tiered education where the children of parents who can afford to raise this kind of money will get the best, while the children of parents who could never raise $150,000 for anything will have to be satisfied with what the government provides.

With a government that has already cut $533 million from support for our classrooms, what this government provides to students is less and less; $533 million dollars in cuts means fewer supplies, fewer programs and larger class sizes. As the quality of education deteriorates, more and more parents who can afford something better for their children will step in to fill the gaps, and more and more schools will become for second-class students. Where does this end? We're well past the point of having a bake sale or a chocolate bar drive to raise a few dollars for a school field trip.

Last year, the government granted charitable foundation to the institutions that have been hardest hit by their cuts. Is this what's ahead for schools? Are they going to turn them into charities and let people get a tax break for contributing to their favourites? This is what education in Ontario is coming to. John Snobelen has created a crisis that can only be resolved by well-to-do parents stepping in, while the kids from less affluent families --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements? Member for Welland-Thorold.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): People in Pelham, down in Niagara region, very much wanted to believe Mike Harris and his Tory candidates back in 1995 when Mike Harris promised no new taxes and no municipal tax hikes. The people in Pelham know now that they can't believe Mike Harris because, let me tell you, for the tax year of 1997 the average property tax increase for Pelham homeowners is going to be just shy of $100, and that's before the catastrophic impact of Harris' megadump of spring of this year.

That means that these same hardworking people are going to see taxes increase in 1998 and 1999 by yet hundreds more in addition to the new $100 tax increase, a direct result of this government's downloading in 1997. These are hardworking people. These are young families with children. These are a whole lot of retirees who simply can't afford higher property taxes.

This government is responsible for the property tax increases and will be held accountable for these property tax increases by people in Pelham as this government will be held accountable across Niagara region, indeed across this province. These people were misled during the campaign of 1995. They won't be deceived again, I can tell you that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Welland-Thorold, you can't accuse a member of this House of misleading the public, and although you may suggest you didn't, I think you did and I'm going to ask you to withdraw.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw, but these people won't be misled again.

The Speaker: I appreciate the difficulty for you in standing up and using just those two words but it's your choice and I'll give you one last opportunity.

Mr Kormos: I withdraw, Speaker. But these people won't be misled again.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise to remind members that this is Police Week 1997. It was decided many years ago that Police Week would always be held in May, starting on the Sunday in the week that contains the 15th day and ending on the following Saturday. May 15 is recognized internationally as Peace Officers Memorial Day. Tomorrow we should reflect and pay honour to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice, the loss of their lives in the line of duty.

Police Week has focused on a variety of social and crime-related topics since its inception. Over the last several years, the main purpose of Police Week has been to forge stronger partnerships between police services and the communities they serve and of which they are a part.

Policing today is being given back to the community. By working together everyone benefits. Through the interaction of individuals, organizations and institutions which all share a responsibility for the wellbeing of the community, we are all better protected. As a former police officer and chair of the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board, I am proud to say that this government is strongly committed to front-line policing and is playing a leading role --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): For over six months I have been trying to get Bill 78 discussed in committee. The government has done nothing but stall. Innocent children have lost their lives. Only vehicle liability will give the law teeth to prevent future deaths. Drivers are passing school buses with their hands shielding their faces because they know they can't be charged if they can't be identified.

My bill has the support of the Ontario School Bus Association, Citizens for Responsible Driving, the Canada Safety Council, many school boards and municipalities, to name just a few. Groups supporting my bill want to come before the committee to tell Mr Palladini why vehicle liability is essential to save children's lives.

I have worked closely with Larry and Colleen Marcuzzi on this bill. They have spoken out publicly to explain why vehicle liability is essential. Colleen is looking down from the members' gallery today. Perhaps Mr Palladini would explain to her why he won't pass vehicle liability.

Quit stalling and quit playing politics, Minister. Implement your own vehicle liability legislation or let Bill 78 receive immediate public hearings. By the rules of this House and democratic government, it is entitled to that. The children of Ontario deserve no less.

ORDER AND DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The mace is a very important part of the heritage of this House and it is the significant instrument with which the Sergeant at Arms exerts his authority within this place. I don't think its access should be blocked for the sergeant by piles of papers or boxes.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand what the member for Perth is trying to say, but it also has to be pointed out that petitions have a long tradition within the British parliamentary system. In fact, that probably predates the actual utilization of the mace. We understand that we've been given direction for those particular petitions to be there, quite a number of them.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I thank the member for Perth for his submission. I think you make a valid point of order. There needs to be some accommodation, obviously, for members to bring in petitions and occasionally those petitions come from large numbers of people in this province. I have to allow a certain leeway to bring those petitions into this place because that is, in the greatest parliamentary tradition, what we are allowed to do and what we have been allowed to do.

I suggested they put them there and a whole bunch more are behind me in the back that they've agreed to put there. It seemed to me that for the limited amount of space they're going to take up, it made a lot more sense to allow them to be piled there than to be piled on their desks, which I would have classified as a demonstration.

It appears to me that we're getting close to a demonstration stage now by piling them all on everyone's desks. I would ask that you could put one at the front. Whoever wants to carry forward this petition may have one on their desk. That's acceptable, and I'll put the rest up front here. But once you start putting them on every member's desk, I think we're getting close to a demonstration, and I accept to some degree that point of order. Clearly, it's well received by the third party because I can see the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaker, if I may, further to your ruling: There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of signatures on this anti-Bill 84 petition. I have 4,000 from Niagara Falls. I wanted to refer to them during my comments today. May I keep the 4,000 from Niagara Falls, or at least the 750 from Thorold?

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, I appreciate what you've put on the record now. I'd just like to say to you, if you'd like to keep those there you're more than welcome to take them out of the box and put them on your desk.

Mr Kormos: Thank you.

The Speaker: You're welcome. Statements.

PARENT FINDERS

This Saturday the two organizations are sponsoring for the first time ever an outreach program called the Adoption Community Outreach Project's Provincial Registration Day, on Saturday, May 17, right across the province. The goal of the event is to provide public awareness around rights and services available to members of the adoption community. Volunteer representatives will be available at over 40 locations such as malls, farmers markets and libraries to provide free information and assistance to those interested in disclosure and reunion.

I would like to say on a personal level that my own experience with those organizations has been very positive. It was through a member of Parent Finders, Holly Kramer, that I was able to locate my birth son. The members are made up of adopted children, birth parents and adoptive parents, and between them they have a wealth of experience, compassion and advice to offer.

In Riverdale volunteers will be at the St Barnabas' Church at 361 Danforth Avenue. If you are interested in finding out where they will be in your area, you can call 416-465-8434.

BUDGET

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): The opposition parties in the Legislature today are floundering. Since the introduction of our budget on May 6 by our Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, the opposition is totally at a loss.

How can they criticize a government which is doing so much for so many, a government which has found significant savings and continues to do so yet also makes needed reinvestments in various areas of our life together in this wonderful province, a government which demonstrates every day that it can both cut taxes and deliver better government services at less cost?

It's plain to me that some opposition members have implied or suggested that this government has cut health care spending. Nothing could be further from the truth. Total spending on health care this year will be $18.5 billion. Spending on ongoing programs alone will be $17.5 billion, up from $17.4 billion, to which we are all firmly committed.

What is truly new in the budget for health care, what has rendered our critics speechless and silenced the federal Liberals who have cut $2.1 billion in transfer payments to Ontario, is that we are investing both in capital and projects and in the restructuring process itself. We cannot expect hospitals to shoulder the entire burden of restructuring and we recognize that over the next five years there will be $2.7 billion reinvested in health care in our communities.

We have put the people and the patient first in finding ways to change spending priorities so that Ontario continues to enjoy a state-of-the-art health care system.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday I attended the truck safety blitz on Highway 400. I understand today you attended the same. More than half the vehicles yesterday were stopped or detained for a reason. One of your inspectors described one as a rolling Molotov cocktail. Another vehicle was described as a real horror show on wheels.

You have done absolutely nothing on truck safety except hold a few press conferences and blow a lot of hot air that with each passing day seems more and more meaningless. Will you call Bill 125 so that we can debate it and pass it in this House today?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I totally disagree with the honourable member saying that MTO enforcement staff and OPP officers have done absolutely nothing when it comes to truck safety. It's certainly something that needs to be readdressed, and taken a look at by the member.

I want to say to the member that I believe we have done a much greater job than your government ever did when you were in power, with the ingredients we have introduced, with the regulations we have implemented, and when it comes to taking vehicles off the road. I want to congratulate MTO staff and OPP staff for picking out the bad trucks because that's the art, in picking out. It's not the numbers that come out of it. It's making sure we pick the right ones and take those plates off the road. Their dedication -- I want to commend them for what they've done towards truck safety.

Mr Duncan: We'd like to commend them as well. In fact, Minister, we've been told by the OPP that they can't access your data, that your ministry and the OPP aren't even communicating. We've been told today that the OPP has invested in computer hardware to enable them to access your ministry's CVOR data -- that's the basic data you have on trucks and safety -- but your ministry won't give them a password.

Further, we've met with your MTO inspectors, who say there's nothing but confusion coming from the top. Your inspectors don't know who's in charge of this -- them or the OPP. The OPP and the inspectors can't agree. The only thing they agree on is that they are getting no support from you, no support from the leadership of your ministry. Will you act today to address their concerns, bring in Bill 125 and then bring in more comprehensive legislation to deal with these extremely important matters?

Hon Mr Palladini: As usual, the honourable member is wrong: I believe that OPP and MTO staff have a good working relationship and they are working in conjunction and making sure that safety on our highways is not compromised. Again I want to say that the member is wrong: The OPP have access through their dispatcher if they want to get a copy of the carrier's CVOR, so I do believe that elements are in place.

I want to say to the member that whatever we have done, I am not satisfied. I believe more has to be done. I have even asked the honourable member -- if you have input that you would like to give me, I'd be very willing to listen to you. We're going to continue to make sure that safety on our highways is not compromised.

Mr Duncan: We do have input. We'll be doing an opposition day in two weeks, and I will be introducing a private member's bill -- it's being drafted right now -- and will respond. In fact, there are a lot of people who want input.

In the members' gallery today are Robina Campbell's daughters. You'll remember Ms Campbell. She was one of the women killed on December 28. When you came out this morning they wanted to talk to you. Their family has sent you 15 letters and they have called your office repeatedly because they wanted input. They told me that when they spoke with you briefly today you blew them off, that you weren't interested in talking to them.

Will you meet with them today? Will you hear what they have to say? Will you call your bill and will you introduce comprehensive safety legislation, stop the press conference and start acting on a very crucial matter that you've been sitting on for two years?

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to say to the honourable member that he is dead wrong. I did not blow anybody off, and after question period I'd be very pleased to meet the two young ladies you are making reference to and I would like them to tell me if I did blow them off. As a matter of fact, I talked to them. I even told them that as far as what is going to happen with our overall safety bill, wheel separation will be a major part of that bill. I personally gave them that commitment this morning. The allegations you're making are totally wrong.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): My question today is to the Solicitor General. Firefighters, many fire chiefs across this province and many municipal councillors are opposed to your Bill 84, the so-called Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Some 225,000 Ontarians have signed petitions in opposition to this bill, many of which already have been presented in this House, and more are coming today.

We all believe that if you proceed with this bill you will be putting Ontarians' lives in jeopardy. Will you finally listen to the opposition to this bill, to our professional firefighters and the people of this province and withdraw Bill 84?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The reality is that the government has listened. The justice committee listened to a number of delegations right across this province. There has been significant change to the legislation based on the input received both by the committee and certainly through discussions and deliberations that I participated in both with chiefs' organizations and the firefighters' unions on a number of occasions. We addressed a significant number of the concerns that were brought forward.

I can go through those amendments, and I will in a supplementary, but I think there's no question that we've addressed those concerns. Many of the petitions the member is talking about were signed and tabled prior to the amendments being brought forward, and we have addressed in a very significant way the major concerns of virtually everyone who expressed a concern about the legislation as tabled.

Mr Ramsay: That's wrong. The minor changes you've made have ignored the most dangerous parts of this bill, and the most dangerous parts of this bill are the potential for privatization, replacing full-time firefighters with part-timers and allowing municipalities to underservice their fire stations in using a call-back system. Those dangerous aspects are still in Bill 84.

Ontario's firefighting system is world-renowned. It is also one of the most effective government agencies we have. Any Ontarian at any time of the day can place a call to a fire station, a real person answers and help is instantly on the way. Why do you continue to push through a bill that encourages our municipalities to cut fire safety?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You can't applaud in the gallery. Thank you.

Hon Mr Runciman: One of the ironies of the press conference that took place this morning was that there was an indication that some municipal officials were not going to support the legislation. The concerns that have been expressed by some firefighters and others with respect to the legislation is the question of privatization. The bill in no way encourages privatization. There's no change from the past. To indicate that's the case is not accurate. To suggest that municipal officials have some concerns -- ultimately, if any decision is made in that respect, it would be municipal officials who make it.

We have addressed all the major concerns. We've bent over backwards to accommodate the people expressing concerns about the legislation, have met with them on numerous occasions. We've made every effort possible to address what we believed in the end were legitimate concerns.

I must say that I am disappointed the attitude continues to prevail that this is bad legislation. In fact, this is very good legislation that improves public safety in this province.

Mr Ramsay: If you were seriously against the privatization of fire services in Ontario, you would change the definition of "employer" in the act to take out "a person or organization" and just restrict it to "municipality." But you haven't done that.

American companies are waiting at the Peace Bridge and they're already here in Ontario. They've bought up six emergency services in Ontario and they're waiting to privatize those fire stations. We're very concerned that with the manning of these fire stations with part-time workers, we're not going to have the responsiveness that Ontario firefighters are renowned for.

As you know, a fire doubles in size every minute. It's Ontario's record to have firefighters at the job in three to four to five minutes that saves people's lives in Ontario. This bill is going to destroy that. I ask you again: Withdraw this bill today.

Hon Mr Runciman: I don't believe it's responsible to make those kinds of allegations or accusations that the member opposite is making. In fact, this bill is going to provide increased fire protection for Ontarians right across this province. We have significant agreement on that. Certainly if you talk to chiefs, if you talk to volunteers across this province, and if you talk to most rank-and-file firefighters when they are made aware of the amendments we've brought forward to this legislation through the committee process --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury, member for Essex South, member for Kenora, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Essex South, I'm not debating you. Please come to order. I have to hear the answer from the Solicitor General.

Hon Mr Runciman: This bill in many ways, in many respects, strengthens fire protection in this province. One element is the fact that we now have the authority, through the Ontario fire marshal's office -- if he or she in the future believes a municipality is not providing an adequate level of public safety through their fire service, he or she has the option and the power to step in and make changes to ensure that that level of protection is provided.

That sort of thing is not in the current legislation. We're talking about legislation that is half a century old. We've moved it into the next century, the century coming.

New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Solicitor General as well. There are about a quarter of a million people across this province who don't believe a word you say. They've read your legislation. They understand that it's about privatizing fire services, they understand that it's about taking full-time fire services and making them into part-time fire services, and they understand it's about reduced fire services.

These are petitions signed by a quarter-million people across this province, people from Hamilton, Thunder Bay, Scarborough, North York, Brockville, Sault Ste Marie, Elliot Lake, Niagara Falls, Chatham, Nepean, Richmond Hill, Sarnia, you name it, from all across this province. They represent a tidal wave of opposition against your legislation.

They've read it, they've listened to people, they know what's in it. They know this involves the downgrading of fire services and this involves the downgrading of public safety in this province. Minister, why won't you listen to the quarter-million people who know you're wrong and have the courage to come out and petition you and tell you you're wrong?

Hon Mr Runciman: I guess there's a political justification for raising this issue today. I'm not sure there's any other justification, certainly not a public safety justification.

I recognize the importance of petitions and concerns being expressed by Ontarians relative to any piece of legislation this government may bring forward, but I pointed out in an earlier question that those petitions, to my knowledge, were all signed prior to the amendments coming forward through clause-by-clause in legislation.

The justice committee carried out extensive consultations across this province in a number of municipalities. My office and myself personally met with officials, both the chiefs and other stakeholders, including the unions, on numerous occasions to address their concerns. We put forward very substantive amendments recognizing those concerns and legitimate suggestions and ways we could improve the legislation, including amendments proposed by members of the opposition parties. To suggest that those --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr Hampton: What this answer amounts to is that a quarter of a million people don't know anything, that 9,000 firefighters don't know anything, that volunteer firefighters, who agree that this legislation is not anything like what you say it is, don't know anything either, according to you. According to you, even your former parliamentary assistant doesn't know anything, because he saw how flawed this legislation was so you had to replace him.

What it comes down to is this: Fire chiefs, such as Dave Field from Windsor, say that this legislation is going to do harm. Peter Ferguson, fire chief here in Toronto, said this is going to do harm and he's urged you to withdraw this legislation. Insurance agents, fire survivors, seniors, police, doctors, nurses across this province have come forward and said that what you're really doing is that in order to take money out of fire services, you're prepared to downgrade the whole system.

What does it take to get you to listen to people who honestly care about the quality of fire protection and public safety? What does it take?

Hon Mr Runciman: I think we have listened and we've consulted and have made a very extensive effort to listen to concerns and to try to address them through the amendments and through the committee hearing process.

I must say I regret that at this stage of the game there are still those who are not supportive of the legislation, contrary to indications that were given to me when the amendments were finalized. That's unfortunate. Certainly we want to have the support of everyone involved in providing fire protection across this province, and we've tried to achieve that. Hopefully, upon finalization and completion of passage of this bill, we can work with all the stakeholders to ensure that's the case in the future.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Solicitor General, you haven't listened to the concerned citizens, hundreds of thousands of them, 9,000 thousand professional firefighters, thousands of volunteer firefighters who are partners in blended services. You haven't responded to their concerns.

You know that Bill 84 is going to put public safety at risk. It opens the door and facilitates the introduction of part-time firefighters and, more dramatically, of privatized firefighting services, American corporate for-profit style, and we know from the US experience that those private corporate firefighting services put profits before public safety.

This isn't just about dollars and cents. You're talking about people's lives and public safety. We know that speed, experience and teamwork save lives. You don't get a second chance when you're fighting a fire. How many people are going to have to die in fires in this province before you'll listen and make the meaningful and appropriate changes to Bill 84?

Hon Mr Runciman: That kind of rhetoric is offensive, to say the least. This is the same party that brought in employment equity in the fire services.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: I just want to briefly go over some of the concerns we've recognized during this process. Management exclusions: We're now red-circling to protect individuals who do not want to go into the management. Hours of work, a very major concern of firefighters when we talked to them across this province: We're going back to the original act. Emergency recall: We're going to allow that to be part of the collective bargaining process. Existing collective agreements will remain in place during a transition period to protect firefighters.

We've added

definitions of "lockout" and "strike" as used under the Labour Relations Act, as asked for by the unions. We removed the certification and decertification provisions to allow fire associations to continue to represent firefighters. We've added the definition of "collective agreement." We've ensured that OMERS pensions are not affected by this legislation. We've clarified with respect to conciliation. We've deemed the existing associations to be the sole bargaining agents for the firefighters.

We have gone that extra mile to recognize those concerns and I'm very proud of this piece of legislation.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Hampton: I say to the Solicitor General that there aren't many people here today who agree with you.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. About a month ago you amputated the regulations

section from Bill 103 so you wouldn't have to have Cafon Court public hearings on your megacity scheme and you told reporters that there would be a son of megacity bill to follow. You said it would deal with "how you deal with labour relations issues; for example, how do you amalgamate the various union contracts and that kind of stuff." We understand that legislation is being drafted now. We understand you're going to give the Association of Municipalities of Ontario the hammer to now go after their employees.

Take firefighters, for example. Will you confirm today that firefighters, police and other public sector employees will no longer have access to the roster --

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

Mr Hampton: -- of respected independent arbitrators on labour contracts, that in fact your government is going to appoint these people on a patronage basis?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What happens with labour contracts when the new city is formed after January 1, 1998, will be the responsibility of the new council. The new council will have all the authority to negotiate with its various bargaining units, various unions, to determine not only what is in the best interests of the municipality, but in the best interests of the employees as well. What we're doing at the present time is drafting legislation that will enable the new council to take whatever actions it deems appropriate to deal with labour relations matters.

Mr Hampton: The legislation you're drafting deals with virtually every city, town and municipality in this province. It's legislation that will allow your government to go after those bargaining units. You didn't say a word of that in Bill 84. You didn't say a word of that in any of your other downloading legislation. But now it's coming out.

We understand the new dispute resolution commission will have all its members chosen by the Premier's office for order-in-council appointments. They will be given powers of binding arbitration over all workers in the broader public sector. The municipal employers, through AMO, have been given every opportunity to influence the drafting of this legislation. It amounts to a secret appendix to the agreement you drafted with AMO, something like hush money.

My question is this, Minister: Don't you think it's unfair that the only people you've talked to in the drafting of this legislation --

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: -- are the employers? Don't you think you should have talked to the workers, the firefighters and their unions before you drafted this legislation?

Hon Mr Leach: Obviously, as the member opposite knows, when the legislation is introduced it will go to committee where everybody will have an opportunity to have input.

I can tell the member opposite that the municipalities have consulted with their labour forces. What we want to ensure is that the duly elected council of the new city, for example, has every right and every means to deal fairly with its employees, and that the employees have every right to negotiate in a fair and reasonable way with their employer.

Mr Hampton: The minister doesn't understand why people would be upset when this legislation is drafted in the back room, and then is brought out and workers across the province who work in the broader public sector, who provide fire services, police services and other public services are told, "Here it is." You don't understand why people would be upset about that? Let me tell you why they'd be upset about that.

These changes are going to affect people's lives. We suspect it's not going to be done in a fair way at all, the same as Bill 84 was drafted and then hatched as a surprise on firefighters. This is going to be another nasty surprise by your government. If you're going to get rid of independent arbitrators, and you're giving all the power over public sector workers to a board of Conservative patronage hacks who are going to do your bidding through their concept of binding arbitration, there's no wonder that firefighters are here today and no wonder that all kinds of public sector workers are worried and concerned.

Minister, don't you think you should at least talk to them before you draft this legislation --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: What I have faith in is the ability of the employer and the ability of the union to be able to negotiate a contract --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Why don't you sit down with the union?

Hon Mr Leach: Because it's the responsibility of their employer to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I warn you to come to order.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): You talk to the --

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury East.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Order in the galleries. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: It's rather disappointing that the head of the labour party would not have faith in the unions to be able to sit down and negotiate a contract with their employer. That's what we're doing with our legislation, to ensure that both labour and management have the tools they need to be able to negotiate a contract and to resolve any disputes they may have, whether that's by arbitration or by any other means. But it should be between the unions and the employers to work that out.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Attorney General. Ontario was quite surprised to learn in the past day that Premier Harris is considering fingerprinting all Ontario residents. For many in Ontario this is a very chilling thought. It smacks of a totalitarian government, the state watching our every move. I think it's unacceptable to the people of Ontario. It is the ultimate bully tactic. Will you tell the people of Ontario today that the government has no intention of pursuing this dangerous intrusion into private lives?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I will refer this question to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): This matter is being actively debated at the Metropolitan Toronto council, which is apparently concerned about abuse in the welfare system, about fraud and overpayment in the welfare system. I understand the item will go to Metro council on June 4, I believe it is. I can only say on behalf of the province of Ontario, and I would hope this view would be shared by all members of the House, that this government is concerned about fraud, about overpayments, about moneys that are not being used effectively and efficiently in whatever system, whether it's the health care system, the welfare system, the WCB.

This government feels that any method to ensure taxpayers' dollars are used most effectively to the people who need the services should be explored and investigated.

Mr Phillips: The reason we asked the question of the Attorney General is, this is not about tidiness and neatness and money; it's about fundamental rights for people of Ontario. That's why we went to the Attorney General, and to refer it, as if this were simply another little budget matter, is irresponsible.

We're talking about Mike Harris here, not Metro council. Mike Harris: "Harris mulls idea of fingerprint ID for all Ontarians."

Attorney General, I'll return to you for this question. This is a fundamental issue for the people of Ontario. I don't mean to be overly dramatic --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Quinte, that's out of order. I would ask that you withdraw that.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I withdraw it.

Mr Phillips: Wars, Attorney General, have literally been fought over this. This is a matter of fundamental rights, and I return to you. Will you, on behalf of Mike Harris and the government, rule out this draconian, major invasion of fundamental privacy of people?

Hon David Johnson: The Provincial Auditor has indicated that in the family benefits program there's some $100 million in fraud.

Interjections.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): This has nothing to do with fraud.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton East and Essex South, I warn you to come to order. I won't warn you again. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I think there are a number of issues that need to be respected in this. Certainly there are privacy issues that need to be respected, no question about it. There is also a need of the people of Ontario to have access to the best possible services -- health services, social services, workers' compensation -- that they can get from the government given the amount of money that's available to provide those services.

This government feels that, in light of those criteria, every possibility should be explored to ensure that, yes, privacy is respected, to ensure that systems are affordable and to ensure that the people of Ontario get the best possible services for the taxes that they pay.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Attorney General: Is your government saying that there is a problem that is so pressing, so urgent that you have to muse out loud about interfering with the democratic rights, the civil liberties of all 11 million people in Ontario? You have an obligation under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that the charter is fulfilled and respected, to ensure that people's civil liberties and democratic rights are respected.

Are you honestly saying as a government that there is such an urgent and pressing problem that you have to muse out loud about interfering with the civil liberties and the democratic rights of 11 million people by means of fingerprinting them all?

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't believe that anyone for an instant is saying or musing out loud that we don't have to respect the charter, that we don't have to respect --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I can't hear the response. The question was allowed to be put. I think it's a responsible House that allows the answer to be put.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Mike will check Hansard.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, I ask that the answer be allowed to be put. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: I don't think anyone for one instant is suggesting that the charter doesn't have to be respected or that we don't have privacy laws against which legislation must be judged. That is taking liberties with what is happening at Metro council, a council that, I might add, has been considering this issue for six years, that is looking at the issue in terms of controlling a process they are concerned with, but that is also trying to do it in a way that's balanced and fair. No one for an instant is suggesting --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Harnick: -- and to make that categorization is absolutely false. To try and impute that kind of motive and to assume that laws don't have to be obeyed or that we wouldn't be respecting the charter as we watch what Metro council is doing is purely ludicrous.

Mr Hampton: Let's get right down to it. I'll tell you, Mr Attorney General, videotapes and audiotapes don't lie. They heard the Premier musing out loud about the benefits of having 11 million people in this province fingerprinted. You may not remember this, but in that very anti-democratic state of South Africa they used to have pass cards. If you wanted to go somewhere, you had to have a pass card. It is complete interference with people's civil liberties.

But let's take it even a step further. Let's get down to the real problem. The problem you have is this: Your government, despite all of its bragging, is not producing any jobs, so 1.5 million people in this province who are unemployed are becoming more desperate. You can kick people on social assistance all you want and then you can fingerprint them, but that isn't going to make their life in Mike Harris's economy any less desperate. Why don't you deal with the real problem? Instead of talking about fingerprinting 11 million people, why don't you get down to creating some jobs --

The Speaker: Thank you. Answer.

Hon Mr Harnick: If there was anyone who created desperation in this province, it was the former government who, after five years, lost 10,000 net jobs in the province. The fact of the matter is that in the last two months alone we have created, I think in the month of March, 46,000 net new jobs. If you want to talk about people creating desperation, it was the former government who put people in desperate straits.

We, as a government, are putting people back to work. We're creating new investment. We're bringing investment to Ontario. We're creating a climate that makes Ontario competitive again and is creating new jobs. Quite simply, we want to put people back to work to undo the damage they did as a government.

STUDENT OPPORTUNITY TRUST FUND

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Even though this government has improved the economic climate such that thousands of jobs are being created in Ontario on a monthly basis, the reality is that many people in the province still have difficulty affording a post-secondary education.

In last year's budget the government established the Ontario student opportunity trust fund, setting a goal of $100 million, which the province pledged to match dollar for dollar to support post-secondary education. I understand there has been considerable interest in the trust fund, that both colleges and universities have supported the government's initiative. How successful has the student opportunity trust fund been?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I note from the press today, perhaps it's Dr Stockwell and Mr Speaker, but I'll leave that to your observation.

The Speaker: It is Mr Speaker, and maybe the evil one, I don't know, but you're pushing to find out. I'm not sure.

Hon Mr Snobelen: It seems like the good Speaker, Mr Speaker, today.

I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls for the question. It's a question that we have been asked on several occasions around the province. In fact last year when we announced the Ontario student opportunity trust fund, we set a goal of $100 million for this fund that would be matched by the Ontario government and that would allow assistance for those students who are in most financial need.

I have to say that I believe the university and college community was overwhelmed with the support from the private sector, individuals right across this province, who contributed $250 million, matched by the provincial government, a $500-million fund which will help 166,000 students in need over the next decade.

I think this speaks volumes about the support of individuals in Ontario to programs that make sense and speaks very well for the Challenge fund, which will help the research in our universities over the course of the next decade as well.

Mr Maves: Minister, it's heartening to hear that news. In light of the success of the fund to date, will the minister extend the program?

Hon Mr Snobelen: In fact we have, as I was just saying, announced the Challenge fund, a 10-year program, $3 billion, in cooperation with the federal government, with the private sector, with individuals, with universities and the provincial government to create research centres of excellence in Ontario.

In addition to that, because colleges were restricted by previous governments from getting help from individuals in the private sector, and they only recently have got permission from this government to go out and have that kind of support, we are going to extend the student opportunity trust fund for our colleges so they can take advantage for another full year. I am very proud of the support our colleges and universities have got from individuals in the private sector right across Ontario.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question today is for the Minister of Health. Two days ago Women's College Hospital presented a report concerning the final submission to what many Ontarians now know as the health services destruction commission. The report found that your commission has overestimated the kinds of savings it can deliver not by a few dollars, not even by $10 million, but by $51 million, and then underestimated the one-time cost by $31 million. That's an $89-million error.

Today we heard from representatives from the Montfort Hospital, from Riverside, from Ottawa General, a hospital not even closing, and they have presented an analysis confirmed by Deloitte and Touche and by KPMG in which they say $89 million worth of savings and costs are wrong.

Who is going to protect the public interest here? Who is going to make sure, when these multimillion-dollar errors happen, that the public is going to be protected? Will it be you, and will you stand and tell us how you'll do that today?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The honourable member is very much aware of the process that's set out in law, that the hospitals have every right to do what they are doing: to present their own data, new data, revised data, including cost projections or cost-saving projections, to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. I trust in the case of Women's College they've done that. I know in the case of Montfort and the hospitals involved in the press conference today that during their press conference they said they had submitted those data to the commission. The commission will make the final determination.

Mr Kennedy: I think the people of Ontario, the patients served by those hospitals you're proposing to close -- you're proposing to close these hospitals just as you've cut all the hospitals in this province -- want to know who is looking after the interests of patients. You keep claiming you can't do anything, that you've put this hospital destruction commission out there to do things, that there is a process. I want to send over to you part of your own Bill 26. It says, "The minister may amend or revoke a direction made under this

section where the minister considers it to be in the public interest...."

Minister, $171 million worth of errors by your commission have been identified in the past two days. Who is going to protect Ontarians when your commission makes mistakes? Will you use the powers you have and will you protect the interests of people who need good health care in this province?

Hon Mr Wilson: I could read back to the honourable member all the quotes from his leader, from past health critics on that side calling for restructuring in this province and the need to get rid of the waste, duplication and inefficiencies of the system and invest every dollar found in savings back into front-line services for patients, more services for patients as we prepare for our growing and aging population.

I'll say to the honourable member and repeat my last answer: The commission will make the final determination. I have heard Dr Duncan Sinclair, the head of that commission, through the media, on TV and the radio, saying many, many times that he welcomes this sort of input, that they want to get it right. It's premature to say it's a "mistake" at this point, given that what this process is about is to present up-to-date data to make sure the commission receives all the facts it needs to make a final determination.

Tout, si cette loi passe, quoi qu'il va arriver, quoi qu'il se passe avec les infractions provinciales, jusqu'à aller aux tribunaux, ne va pas être couvert sous la Loi 8. Je vais vous lire une décision que j'ai eue des avocats de cette Assemblée. Je vais la lire en anglais car la réponse est en anglais. Je veux que vous écoutiez. Ça dit:

"Bill 108 will not preserve the right to receive court administration and support services, ie, services provided outside the courtroom, when those services are provided by municipalities -- "

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

Mr Bisson: Speaker, please, this is serious. "This is because the French Language Services Act does not apply to municipalities and because the courts of justice -- "

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, come to order, please. Minister.

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. In Kent county and indeed all of southwestern Ontario concern for the environment is primary. In Essex county because of the proximity to the United States, in Lambton because of the Chemical Valley, I understand today that you introduced a pilot program that encourages development and use of new environmental technologies. Could you explain for the House exactly what that new pilot project is?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I believe this is an important new effort on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Energy to encourage new innovation and new technologies. What will happen is that the Ministry of Environment and Energy will provide written evaluations on new technologies. This will give potential buyers and investors greater confidence in this new technology. It will speed up approvals in Ontario and it will help hurdle many of the barriers which new innovators have in the marketplace.

This new project will ensure that new innovators in Ontario with regard to the environment will not only have an opportunity in the domestic market but will also have an opportunity in the international market.

Mr Carroll: It sounds as though the project, the pilot you announced today, takes into account the required balance between industry and the environment. Could you explain for us -- obviously there's a process involved -- exactly what that process does involve?

Hon Mr Sterling: At the present time, if a person comes up with a new technology to solve an environmental problem, it is necessary for them to go out and sell this technology to a would-be buyer. It is often necessary for them to have the order for that project to go ahead, that is, they have to combine the new technology with the site and then get approval from the Ministry of Environment.

Under this process, the inventor or the innovator or the entrepreneur can come to the ministry before they actually have the order and the site location. They therefore can get pre-approval or pre-evaluation of their innovative technology and take that approval and use it as a sales tool to help them sell this new technology to a would-be buyer.

This is not a required thing that they do for the environment but it is an option. It is a tool which the environmental industry can use to their benefit, not only in our province --

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

HAMILTON HARBOUR

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. First of all, Minister, if you want to help the environment, maybe you can restore some of the $121 million that you've cut out since you have taken office.

In regard to the question: The west side of Hamilton Harbour has an area known as Randle Reef. It is one of the most contaminated hot spots in Canada. It is probably the second-worst spot. It is the worst spot in Hamilton Harbour. It is coal tar, a contamination that is causing a threat to the rest of Hamilton Harbour. It is spreading and it is in desperate need of cleanup.

The cost of this cleanup is estimated to be about $8.5 million. One third of that money has been committed by the federal government. There's an effort to get Stelco, the company responsible for part of it, to commit to one third. Can I ask you today if the provincial government is willing to do its share in the cleanup of Randle Reef in Hamilton Harbour and commit to one third of the $8.5 million necessary?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): About a month ago I announced that this government was going to give, and we did transfer, $1 million to clean up the Randle Reef problem, which has been brought to the attention of the House by the member opposite. We feel that contribution is a first step. The federal government has given forward $3.5 million.

We have to take this into context with the other things that the provincial ministry has been doing with regard to the cleanup of a number of projects in the Great Lakes. This government and previous governments have contributed about $300 million to that process, while the federal government has committed about $80 million. We feel that imbalance has to be made up and perhaps in this particular project there's a greater onus on the federal government to come forward with a little bit more money than the provincial government does in this case.

Mr Agostino: Simply, that is not good enough, Minister. That is not good enough for the people of Hamilton. That excuse is flawed. You have a responsibility to do your share to help clean up Hamilton Harbour. The federal government has committed money. Past history and histrionics mean nothing to this project. What is holding up this project is your lack of commitment towards the cleanup of this spot in Hamilton Harbour.

One million dollars is not enough. It is a one third cost-sharing. The price has gone down from $15 million to $8.5 million now as the result of technology, so your commitment for that project to go ahead must be $3.5 million. Anything short of that shows a lack of commitment and a lack of leadership. You sitting here passing the buck to the federal government simply is not good enough.

The work and the money that you talked about earlier that has gone into the cleanup of Hamilton Harbour is now in jeopardy as a result of the fact that this hot spot -- we're not talking about a feel-good thing here. We're talking about a toxic hot spot. We're talking about cancer-causing chemicals and agents in this. Again, I ask you, Minister, will you show leadership today and commit to --

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

Hon Mr Sterling: I believe a number of people are responsible for the cleanup. We've already mentioned the federal government, the provincial government. We also believe that the industries which created this particular problem should be coming to the table as well.

I indicated previously to the member that the government may consider granting more money to this particular project, but I must say that the mayor, the regional chair and the conservation authority were very pleased with this government, in a tight fiscal situation, being able to give to the community of Hamilton-Wentworth $1 million for this project last fiscal year. We are looking to continue working with them, but we are looking for other partners to come to the table, as I mentioned before, particularly those who caused this problem.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is for the Attorney General. You know this question is coming, Minister, as I raised it with you earlier and laid some documents before you. I am today in this House publicly raising the plight of Mrs Phyllis McAvoy, whose son, Mark McAvoy, died February 13, 1991, as a result of a shotgun blast at the home of a friend where only he and the friend were present. There were ultimately charges of criminal negligence laid against the friend, but that was reduced by plea bargaining that ultimately resulted in a suspended sentence with two years' probation.

Mrs McAvoy would not accept the fact that this result meant that the justice system decided her son had committed suicide. She could not accept that. With the help of Spectator reporter Jim Holt and regional police services board chair Terry Cooke, she spent two years fighting to get a coroner's inquest that ultimately was held and did show that there was not a suicide. Someone else caused the death, and the death scene had been altered before the police arrived. Minister, this citizen is not only lost in the justice system, she's out $50,000. I am asking you to review this outstanding legal bill.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Just before you start, Attorney General, can I ask that the private conversations taking place right now be taken out into the east lobby. I am having difficulty hearing the questions. Thank you. Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The member did provide me with some material today, and I can assure the member that the material will be reviewed and certainly the question that he has asked will be considered.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the Attorney General's commitment and in a very non-partisan way I know that he will review this as carefully as possible.

I want to underline and underscore to him the fact that Mrs McAvoy is not a rich person by any stretch. She's an ordinary working person who fought to show that the justice system made a mistake and it's proven that they did. In fact, CBC's The 5th Estate in October 1996 did a major exposé on how the justice system failed Mrs McAvoy.

I suggest that she is entitled to this $50,000 that she is now in debt for, for two important reasons: One is that she personally had to fight our justice system to get natural justice for her and her son; second, the coroner's inquest brought out recommendations that have made the justice system better for all citizens of Ontario in the hope that there won't be any more tragedies like Mrs McAvoy's. I say to you, Attorney General, that there's every reason for this government to take this woman out of debt and give her back as much dignity and hope for the future as this tragedy might allow.

Hon Mr Harnick: Again, I've indicated that I will review the material that the member provided me with and will give it every consideration.

SELF-MANAGEMENT

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As you are aware, Minister, this government is all about doing better for less, providing better services at lower cost to the taxpayer. One of the mechanisms for achieving that goal, as I know the opposition wants to hear, is through industry self-management of regulatory compliance. You have carried out some discussions on this matter with some industry groups. I wonder if you can update us on the status of these discussions.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for his question. I was fortunate this morning to be addressing the Toronto Real Estate Board and we had a discussion on some of the self-management issues.

First, I'd like to clarify that we're talking about self-management, not self-regulation. The province will continue to set the policy and certainly provide the guidelines. We're talking about licensing functions and enforcement and educational programs as well.

I am happy to report the fact that the Real Estate Council of Ontario, RECO, and the technical standards and safety authority assumed responsibility for the appropriate statutes on May 5. An administrative agreement has been signed with the travel industry, TICO, paving the way for the delegation of functions in the near future.

Clearly these are initiatives that are welcomed by the industries, but certainly welcomed by consumers as well, and I think this will raise the bar in terms of the standards we were going to provide for the consumer in the province of Ontario.

Certainly we now have associations that will encompass all members of these industries and not just the ones which currently belong to private organizations.

Mr Parker: I agree. It's very important for the opposition to keep very clearly in mind that we are talking about self-management of compliance. The regulations will continue to be set by the province.

Minister, you've commented on your discussions with industry groups. Have you also been discussing these matters with consumer groups such as the Canadian Automobile Association or other consumer councils?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: A significant amount of consultation went on with consumer groups. I'm also pleased to advise that a number of the representatives of consumer groups are members of these particular councils. For example, on OMVIC, which is the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, we have Pauline Mitchell of Hamilton. Ms Mitchell is a long-time resident of Hamilton but currently is the manager of public and governmental affairs for the Canadian Automobile Association of south-central Ontario.

In the Real Estate Council of Ontario, we have Alan Silverstein, who people recognize as quite an expert in the real estate field and who has a column in the Toronto Star and reports on consumer issues.

Dealing with the technical standards and safety authority, we have Joyce Feinberg, a previous deputy minister with the government who is also a board member of the Canadian Consumer Council, and Rosalie Daly Todd, who's the legal counsel of the Consumers' Association of Canada.

Clearly this is a commitment we have to ensure that the consumers are protected.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In introducing your Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act -- not -- which of course takes away much of the protection from tenants, you received a letter from the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission expressing some grave concerns -- another human rights issue, the second today, that we asked this government about.

Minister, what do you plan to do? For the first time, what this suggests is that you will introduce regulations that are not in the code, undercut the Human Rights Code and allow violations against people by introducing an income test for people, which is discriminatory, systemic discrimination, in fact.

Will you listen to what the commissioner is saying and take sections 36 and 200 out of your particular amendment so human rights will prevail in Ontario?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I've corresponded with the chief commissioner and he has also commented that he does recognize that landlords have legitimate business reasons for requesting information such as credit checks and rental histories. He further stated that the commission does not challenge the landlords who request information concerning a person's rental history and credit ratings or who require first or last month's rent.

The commissioner indicated that he had some difficulty with income information, and we advised the commissioner that we would be pleased to review that with him, and when the bill gets through second reading and gets to committee, we would be pleased to talk about an amendment to deal with that issue.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by many constituents throughout my riding and I attach my name to that as well.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition that has been signed by 360 concerned citizens from the community of Fort Frances. What it says is as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

As I indicated, this has been signed by 360 citizens from the community of Fort Frances, and I affix my signature as well in support of them.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

SÉCURITÉ LORS D'UN INCENDIE / FIRE SAFETY

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : «À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

«Les pompiers doivent faire preuve de rapidité, d'expérience et d'esprit d'équipe pour sauver des vies. Je m'oppose à toute législation qui pourrait amoindrir le travail de mes pompiers locaux et compromettre la sécurité lors d'un incendie dans ma communauté. Veuillez écouter ce que disent les pompiers professionnels et amendez ce projet de loi 84 afin d'éliminer la menace à la sécurité lors des incendies.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have here in my hand literally thousands of signatures from people, concerned citizens, about Bill 84, the so-called fire safety bill, who are very concerned about this bill, and these people are all from the Toronto area. It reads:

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I agree with this petition wholeheartedly and will affix my name.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): First, I'd like to thank the member for Algoma for delivering my petitions to me from my riding. Thank you very much. These are from Owen Sound and around Grey county.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition which concerns the current child care crisis in Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Tory government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas the concept of affordable, accessible and quality child care is a basic, important, fundamental right for many members of our community who are either unemployed and enrolled into a training program or are working single parents or where both parents are working; and

"Whereas, if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the Jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to the child care workers;

"We, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care workers of our Parkdale and High Park communities urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across our province, and restore funding to their previous levels."

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

This is signed by hundreds of people from the municipality of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and other places in Niagara region, people like --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): No, we don't need all the names.

Mr Kormos: I affix my signature to it as I'm in complete agreement with it, along with the thousands of other petitions having been tabled with the Clerk here today.

Mr Maves: I have a number of petitions from people concerned with Bill 84. As the minister has said, all of these came in before the amendments, and I think many of those amendments have addressed some concerns.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My petition reads: "Speed, experience and teamwork save lives. Don't get burned by Bill 84.

I affix my signature in agreement with hundreds who have signed this petition.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would just say that it doesn't bode well for the workers of this province when the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour insults firefighters the way the member for Niagara Falls did here just a few moments ago.

I have a petition -- in fact I have thousands of petitions signed by over 15,000 concerned citizens in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, my home town -- and this petition is in support of those firefighters who are here today, and good for them, putting up the good fight.

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

I proudly add my name to the 15,000 citizens who are supportive of this petition today.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's signed by some 50 members and attendants of the Knox Presbyterian Church in Elora, and they are opposed to the creation of 44 so-called charity casinos equipped with some 20,000 video lottery terminals.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I've also signed my name to that petition.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I too have a petition, that was signed by 5,550 residents of the regional municipality of Sudbury. These are people who know that the government amendments on Bill 84 were pathetic and do nothing to stop the privatization of fire services or protect --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you present the petition? This is not debate.

Ms Martel: Absolutely, Mr Speaker. It reads as follows:

I agree with the petitioners and I have signed my name to these petitions.

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND VICE-PRINCIPALS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the principals and vice-principals of Grey county's elementary and secondary schools, believe that the membership of principals and vice-principals in their respective professional federations is an important factor in creating and maintaining a positive, collegial learning environment for students.

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

"That principals and vice-principals remain as members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates."

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by thousands of people from Thunder Bay, along the North Shore communities and Longlac, Geraldton, Beardmore and Nipigon who are very concerned about Bill 84 and very concerned that the government has not listened. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

I'm proud to sign this on behalf of all the people who are concerned about this issue.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased today to be submitting petitions from the communities of the city of Scarborough, 16,905 signatures, and from the borough of East York, 1,275. It reads as follows:

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I am in complete agreement and have affixed my signature.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Having been the first member of the Legislative Assembly to present a petition in opposition to Bill 84 the day it was tabled, I continue to be expressly concerned about the dangers inherent in this legislation, so I continue to agree that:

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

I affix my signature to it.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I too have a petition that talks about speed, experience and teamwork saving lives.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I, together with thousands of Kingstonians, have signed a petition like this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): My apologies to the member for Algoma. I was blocked out and I didn't see you. I recognize you now.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition, but with your indulgence, Speaker, I would like to announce to the members of the assembly that Canada has just defeated Sweden 2 to 1 and won the World Hockey Championship.

The Acting Speaker : I thought you had a petition.

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by 65 residents of Malette Bay, a community in Ley township, north of Sault Ste Marie.

"Whereas we the residents or property owners in Ley township in the region of Algoma are without telephone service in our community;

"Whereas for several years we have attempted to rectify this situation through individual pleas and by group petitions directly to Bell Canada and at least on one occasion a petition to the CRTC;

"Whereas the situation is this: Bell Canada lines run to within one kilometre of some of the undersigned properties to a maximum of 10 kilometres to the furthest household. These telephone lines are carried on existing utility poles. Utility lines extend past the furthest household;

"Whereas the lack of telephone services endangers all of us due to the inability to contact emergency services such as fire services; the makeup of our community is diverse and includes senior citizens, home-based entrepreneurs and on-call professionals; the nature of our lifestyle requires the use of inherently dangerous equipment such as chainsaws and axes; both residents and visitors regularly operate potentially dangerous recreational vehicles; lack of speed of access to emergency services such as ambulance heightens our risk significantly;

"Whereas the lack of telephone service seriously impairs the ability of home-based businesses to conduct their business activities in a professional and timely manner;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to intercede on our behalf in our support to have telephone service provided to our community."

I support this. I can't believe that in the 1990s a community less than 25 miles from a major urban centre does not have telephone service.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On behalf of the member for Nickel Belt, I beg leave to present the 38th report of the standing committee on government agencies.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Kormos: No, thank you.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Mr Runciman moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 84,

An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to indicate at the outset that there has been an all-party agreement for a five-minute bell on this bill at five to 6.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to make a few brief remarks at third reading of Bill 84, the new Fire Protection and Prevention Act. As members are aware, the standing committee on administration of justice has recently completed public hearings and clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 84. The committee spent a total of seven days hearing from witnesses in Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Kingston, Thunder Bay and Sudbury.

As always, these hearings provided an excellent opportunity for all interested parties to offer suggestions and comments on the bill. Since this is the first time in almost 50 years that the fire service legislation in Ontario has been substantially amended, I felt it was particularly important to hear from people and organizations on all sides of the issues before the bill was finalized.

I want to take just a few moments here to thank all of the people who participated in the hearings and who made submissions. In particular, I want to thank the fire chiefs, the fire associations and the front-line firefighters, both full-time and volunteer, who attended the hearings. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the justice committee for the time and effort they put into seeing Bill 84 through the committee process.

In addition to the formal committee process, I've also been involved in a number of, I think it's fair to categorize them as, productive meetings with fire service stakeholders. As a result of these meetings and the hearings, we've made a very significant number of important amendments to the bill. In fact, I understand that the committee passed a number of amendments which were put forward by opposition members as well. In my view, this process has been an excellent demonstration of the way the parliamentary process can and should work.

We also adopted a number of proposals put forward by the associations representing both Ontario's fire chiefs and firefighters, and their advice was very helpful. For example, the fact that we have defined a fire chief as "the person who is ultimately responsible to the council of a municipality...for the delivery of fire protection services" recognizes that fire chiefs are the experts, they are the key advisers to council on public fire safety matters.

The committee also passed a number of housekeeping matters that clarify the language of the bill and will resolve misunderstandings.

We changed the language on pensions -- this was a concern of many firefighters -- to make it clear that OMERS pension rights are not affected by this legislation. That was our intention from the beginning, but concerns arose and we moved to clarify that.

We also dealt with issues regarding costs of mandatory conciliation and arbitration procedures. With respect to conciliation, Bill 84, as amended, provides that each side will now pay its own legal costs, and we expect that the Ministry of Labour will provide conciliators. On arbitration, each side will pay its own legal costs and both sides share the costs of the arbitrator. That was another concern of the associations.

On a major concern of the associations dealing with management exclusions from the bargaining unit, we've attempted to balance the needs of municipalities for flexibility in their management structure so they can effectively manage fire services with the concerns of firefighters related to the exclusion process. The bill will now allow firefighters to refuse automatic exclusions. They will be able to remain in the bargaining unit and enjoy full salary protection. This is called "red-circling," another major concern of the associations that we moved to address.

For non-automatic exclusions, the employer will now be able to apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a determination and the individual will remain in the bargaining unit until the board makes a decision regarding that individual's status. It was a concern of the associations that if an exclusion decision was made by management and while a decision was pending from the OLRB, that could jeopardize the status of that individual firefighter. Again, we've moved to address that concern.

We have also amended the sections of the bill dealing with hours of work and emergency recall, two very significant concerns of professional firefighters in this province. We've moved to address those so they can now be matters for negotiation between the parties, again recognizing those concerns of professional firefighters across this province.

Another major concern of firefighters' associations that we addressed through our amendments was certification and decertification procedures. They have been deleted from the bill, and the associations are deemed to be the bargaining agents for firefighters, a very significant move, a very significant amendment, a very clear recognition of the concerns of professional firefighters in this province.

Finally, we've clarified procedures during the transition period so that existing collective agreements continue to be recognized after the proposed bill comes into effect. This is in effect protection during amalgamations, municipal restructuring, protecting firefighters during that process.

As in every issue involving labour and management, no one got everything they wanted, but I must say there was significant movement, significant change in recognition of concerns and suggestions and proposals that we heard during the committee process and during discussions I and my staff had with members of various stakeholder organizations, with individual firefighters and with members of this Legislature.

There's no doubt in my mind that the legislation as amended will make it easier for fire departments to concentrate on their responsibilities for public fire safety. That really is the key to an effective fire service or any life-and-death emergency service: a cooperative work environment that strikes a balance and allows firefighters to get the job done, a balance and an environment that will improve public safety and save lives.

These amendments address many of the concerns raised by the various stakeholders, and I believe the final result is a piece of legislation we can all be proud of. I believe that as members of this Legislature we all share a common interest in developing legislation that helps municipalities provide all Ontarians with the best possible fire protection in the most efficient way.

I want to make this next point very clear: We have heard concerns raised that part-time firefighters or some other service delivery model, if adopted by a municipality, could compromise public safety.

I want to indicate very strongly that that certainly will not happen. I would not allow it to happen; I would not allow public safety to be compromised, and I don't believe any Solicitor General who holds this office in the future would allow that to occur.

I want every member for this Legislature to know that Bill 84 will require -- require -- every municipality to provide an appropriate level of fire protection that meets the needs and circumstances of its residents, whether they employ full-time, part-time, volunteers or a combination of these to deliver the service. This is a new initiative: a guarantee of protection to municipalities across this province.

This requirement will be backed by important new powers that will rest with the fire marshal of Ontario. If the fire marshal believes there is a serious threat to public safety, under Bill 84 he will have the authority to review municipal fire services and make recommendations to the municipal council, and if that serious threat is not corrected the government will now have the authority to directly regulate a solution. These are very, very important improvements in the legislative framework for fire safety in Ontario.

The bill also formally establishes the Fire Marshal's Public Fire Safety Council as a vehicle to develop partnerships with the private sector to promote fire safety. The fire service in Ontario, both professionals and volunteers, has made remarkable strides in reducing fire losses in the past 25 years. Those improvements are reflected in fire loss statistics: In the past 25 years, fire fatalities in Ontario have fallen by 60%, a dramatic improvement.

In order to achieve further improvements in fire safety, we need to develop better methods of preventing fires rather than fighting them, and that's precisely the approach Bill 84 takes. It doesn't neglect fire suppression, but for the first time, it gives a special focus and equal weight to fire prevention and to public education as the best method of improving our fire prevention programs.

Fire prevention and public education are not new ideas. Fire departments across the province have been doing this for years. However, Bill 84 makes these activities mandatory -- mandatory -- and it obliges municipalities to provide these programs as part of their fire protection service. It also authorizes the fire marshal to assume a leadership role in helping municipalities develop these programs and in providing the necessary support materials. Personally, I am very optimistic about this approach. I believe it offers the best hope for further dramatic improvements in fire safety.

Prior to Bill 84, the legislation in the area of fire protection and prevention had not been substantially changed for decades. Change was clearly long overdue. In fact, all three parties in this Legislature have been involved in the fire services review, which dates back to 1983. I think there was significant frustration among many stakeholders about an inability to achieve a consensus, and I think the lack of ability to achieve a consensus was reflected here today. It's a very difficult challenge, and politics always enters into these kinds of equations.

I think there was a responsibility, certainly a responsibility recognized by this government, that it was time to get on with the job and get it finished so that the fire chiefs and the front-line firefighters could get on with their job, the most important job of all: protecting the public from fire.

Taken together, I believe the changes made to the fire services legislation under Bill 84 will allow Ontario's communities to be better protected from fire for decades to come.

I know this has been a difficult process for many of us involved, but I hope that following completion of this and following passage of the bill we can all work together in what I know is a shared interest of members of this House and members of fire services, no matter what role they play, for improved public safety in this province. That's certainly my commitment, and I know that behind all this, behind all the discussion, all the debate, all the disagreements, all of us have the best interests of Ontarians at heart.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me just say that I was involved in the hearings to some extent in my own municipality, and certainly the firefighters don't put as nice a shine on the whole situation as the Solicitor General has just done. As he has been requested to do a number of times, why doesn't he just withdraw

part IX, that part of the bill that deals with the labour relations provisions, and I think I can say that pretty well everybody will be quite satisfied with the bill.

What you're doing in the labour relations provisions of this bill, in

part IX, is taking away from the professional firefighters provisions and agreements that have been negotiated between themselves and the municipalities over the years. You are unilaterally taking those rights away. That is the essence of what this is really all about.

Second, of course, is this whole area of whether or not the fire services in a municipality can or cannot be privatized. Repeatedly you've stated that it's not the case. If it's not the case, why don't you specifically state so in the bill, that fire departments will remain municipal fire services or will be operated through the government? Why don't you just specifically put in the bill, if that is really your intent, the fact that a municipality cannot privatize its fire services?

That's what this bill is all about. You can put all sorts of beautiful lines on it and all sorts of beautiful images on how wonderfully everybody will get along afterwards. The fact still is that that's what the fire associations are concerned about: They are concerned about privatization of the fire services in their municipalities and they're concerned about you, the government, unilaterally withdrawing labour relations provisions that the associations in the individual municipalities throughout this province have fought for and have been able to obtain as a result of open and free collective bargaining and negotiations.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I listened carefully to what the member for Leeds-Grenville, the Solicitor General, had to say, and I must say that he attempts to put a gloss on the situation by saying, "It's been difficult -- there's been disagreement, there's been controversy -- but now we're going to make it work and everybody is going to get on." I'm sure the firefighters in this province will do everything they can to ensure that people are protected and properties are protected so we don't lose lives and we don't have property losses as a result of fire.

They'll do everything to prevent those emergencies, and when they face them, they'll do their best to serve the public and to protect the public and public safety.

What's disturbing about this process is that the government did not listen to what those firefighters had to say. The central issues that they brought before the committee the government did not deal with. To have members of the government party get up and say, "The petitions that were presented were all signed before the committee did its work and the amendments were passed, so therefore everything is fine," does not deal with the fact that there are firefighters in this province who are genuinely concerned about their collective bargaining rights and who are concerned about the future of municipal firefighting in this province if it is privatized, as has been suggested may in fact happen.

The fact is that this bill was designed through consultation with the fire chiefs. It did not respond to the concerns of the firefighters and it still doesn't. It's most unfortunate that through this whole process the government has basically said: "We're prepared to make minor changes, but the central issues that are raised by the firefighters we will not change. We will not respond to their concerns."

The Acting Speaker: The Solicitor General has two minutes to respond.

Hon Mr Runciman: I appreciate the comments. I don't agree with any of them, but I appreciate the members' right to express their views and the views of their party.

The member for Kingston and The Islands talked about

part IX. I think we have moved to address a number of the concerns that firefighters have posed related to

part IX. But there are other concerns related to that

section in terms of allowing other partners in the provision of fire services in this province to have some degree of flexibility in terms of the management of that service, and I think that's a needed balance that we've tried to achieve. Certainly it hasn't been without some challenge, but I think at the end of the day, we've done a pretty good job in achieving that balance.

Both the member from Kingston and the member for Algoma talked about privatization. This bill does not promote privatization. That's an option that already exists or existed under the Municipal Act. I found it quite ironic to see the press conference this morning where a number of municipal officials were talking about not agreeing to this. Well, municipal councils have had the option of consideration of privatization in the past under the Municipal Act and they're the folks who will have this option in the future.

I think they tend to act in the best interests of their own citizens in terms of public safety questions. For them to now say that this is a new issue, that this is some new concern that's been placed on their plate is totally inaccurate. The opposition's attempts to continue to put forward the suggestion that we are in some way and some how promoting privatization is completely inaccurate.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we should seek unanimous consent to the agreement we reached that this would be a five-minute bell at five minutes to 6.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? It is agreed. Further debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm going to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split the remainder of the time between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party.

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? It is agreed.

Mr Bradley: I am going to be relatively brief this afternoon in speaking to Bill 84 because I had an opportunity to deal with the issues related to Bill 84 rather extensively during second reading when I indicated my very strong disapproval of many of the provisions of this piece of legislation.

The background to it, which I think is significant to members of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters and the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, is in fact the commitment of the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, during the election campaign that no significant changes would be made to the act until such time as there had been meaningful and extensive consultation with representatives of firefighters in the province.

That commitment was not fulfilled, any more than the commitment was fulfilled when the Premier said, "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you I have no plans to close hospitals." Well, he had no plans, I guess, to make significant changes to fire safety and the provisions of acts related to fire safety in this province, but he did so without extensive and meaningful consultation.

It was only through the efforts of the opposition parties that we were able to extract from the government hearings which would be held not only for more than simply a week, but would be held for a longer period of time and in a number of different municipalities in Ontario so that representatives of firefighters and others interested in the bill could make representations to the committee as to changes which should be made to the legislation before it was brought to the House for third and final reading.

I heard the Solicitor General say that he would not allow fire safety and fire services in the province to deteriorate or not be as good as they could possibly be. It's very difficult to keep these commitments when the remainder of the cabinet, and particularly those who advise the Premier, are not necessarily going to be supportive of that in terms of the resources that are going to be provided to the Solicitor General.

The Solicitor General, for instance -- and this is something we all face in each one of our communities -- would like to see the psychiatric hospital in his community remain open, and I'm sure he will be a person who will fight for that to happen, but there's no guarantee when the rest of the cabinet don't agree that that's going to happen, and that's my concern.

I'm not doubting at all the commitment of the Solicitor General. I know him too well and have known him too long not to know that he has a sincere commitment to maintain adequate and good fire services in this province. My concern is that he will not be able to fulfil that commitment because of the advisers. Guy Giorno is probably the most powerful person, along with Tom Long, in terms of advising this government. They have more power than even the cabinet ministers have.

I'm concerned that they'll be advising the Premier to continue to cut taxes even further and further and therefore allow services to deteriorate, because we know that when the government cuts taxes, it has to get its money somewhere else. It has to get its money by cutting services or by borrowing money to pay for the tax cut. Neither option is sensible, and I'm sure people concerned about fire safety in this province would agree with me in saying that.

The firefighters have already had to deal with the provisions of the social contract in Ontario. They were concerned about that in years gone by. They've had to live with those cuts, with the money they were receiving, the compensation they were receiving, but they have lived through that and they weren't looking for a further assault on their pocketbooks or on the provisions of their collective agreements. Yet that's what this bill is doing, even though certain modifications have been made.

The professional firefighters represented in our galleries today by their leadership are people who are well-trained, competent, experienced, committed and prepared to deal with emergencies that relate to fires in this province. Any chance that that would change through the provisions of this legislation is not acceptable to them as individuals who are concerned about fire safety in the province, nor is it acceptable to anyone else in the province who relies upon the services of professional firefighters to maintain fire safety within their homes, their businesses, their industries and various institutions in the province.

We have people who are well trained. More and more now, when a young person wants to join a fire department, to be considered for employment in a fire department, that person is out taking courses. Some of the firefighters themselves are taking additional courses to upgrade and update themselves on new dangers that present themselves because of new chemicals or new substances or new emergencies that might arise. Again, I worry, with the provisions of this bill, particularly

part IX, that we're going to see some significant and adverse changes in that regard.

Something that may not be of great significance to some people in the province, because we've not had a strike of firefighters in the province, is the fact that the government has removed the right to strike for firefighters through the provisions of this legislation. Let me tell you, firefighters have never exercised that right and many have said that under no circumstances they foresee would they ever exercise that particular right. It was a source of pride, and has been for many years, for members of our fire departments across this province to say of their own volition that they will not be out on strike, because they recognize they're an essential emergency service.

I consider the provision in this bill that prohibits that as, yes, appealing to management types, appealing perhaps to business, but certainly not appealing to fairminded Ontarians who believe that when people give a commitment on their own not to exercise the right to strike, they should not receive a slap in the face by writing that into legislation. I'm prepared to accept the firefighters' undertaking in this province that they are not going to strike. I don't need it written in legislation, because I know the people who are involved with fire departments across this province in each of our communities.

They are individuals who are competent, talented, very, very professional people on the job. Off the job they're often people who are involved in community service in a variety of ways. I know in our own community hospitals have been the recipients of some of the largess, some of the volunteer work of firefighters in St Catharines and the surrounding area.

No matter where you go, when an emergency exists -- I think even with the Manitoba flood I heard in some municipalities that you could bring certain items to help out the people in Manitoba to the fire department, to fire stations. That's not the exception; that's the norm in dealing with firefighters in this province. That's why I find it astounding that the government would bring forward legislation of this kind, which represents an insult to firefighters right across the province.

One of the insidious provisions is the provision that allows for privatization. Let's be serious about this. This is a matter that in the past people might have said was not to be considered in a serious manner. Today it is, since so many in this government, particularly those who advise the Premier, the brain trust who are not elected but advise the Premier, adhere to the policies and pronouncements of those south of the border, the Republican guard, the right wing of the Republican Party, who worship at the idol of privatization of every possible service.

Because I know this government believes, at least many of its members, that privatization in as many fields as possible is desirable, it seems to me that firefighters and people in our communities have reason to be concerned about the potential for privatization.

There's a company called Rural/Metro that is in the ambulance service south of the border. Members may recall one day in the House I asked the Minister of Health, who was then Mr Johnson -- he was acting Minister of Health at the time -- about Rural/Metro moving in and taking over ambulance services because the province is bailing out of that. The province, which has had responsibility, appropriately so, for ambulance services in this province has bailed out, has detached itself, has totally detached itself from the provision of those services.

So what happens? My friend the member for Welland-Thorold has described in this House on a number of occasions the lineup at the Peace Bridge of people waiting on the other side of the bridge, on the other side of the border, to --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: I should say to the whip that I'm not offended by the member's interjection, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Anyway, the member has described how they are lined up on the other side of the border, waiting to move in, and in some cases they're already here providing a service.

What you find out is that when they first cross the border, that service is relatively cheap, and they try to stay within the confines of the regulations in this province, though heaven forbid, this province is getting rid of as many regulations as possible. My friend the member for Lincoln, Frank Sheehan, is in charge of getting rid of all this regulatory regime that we have.

I worry when I see these companies coming into this province because I don't think many municipalities want to take over the service. Some don't have the wherewithal to do it, the financial resources, some simply don't want to be involved with it because they think it's the responsibility of the provincial government, so we may see some considerable privatization of that service.

You should know that south of the border Rural/Metro will do some fire services as well. They say, "Give us the ambulance services and we'll give you the fire services free." That happens; the member knows, my friend the parliamentary assistant. I don't mind her interjecting. I know the whip was kind enough to suppress some of the interjections. I want to tell her, however, that I'm prepared to listen to her interjections in my usual jocular fashion, even though I'm not in a very jocular frame of mind this afternoon, I might add. However --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): We heard that; your caucus was telling us.

Mr Bradley: The NDP has heard that "however."

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Another hangover.

Mr Bradley: That is a comment, I should tell the member back there, you should never make in this House. Never make that in this House, because I can tell you it would not be the case.

I want to say that privatization, then, is a genuine concern we have in this province. I think if we saw the privatization of fire services, we would see a deterioration in that service. I know you think there are companies south of the border that can do this. I think the people in the rural areas have more to worry about immediately than those of us in the urban areas. I hope, even though in this House they may not agree with me, they'll go back to the caucus and say: "Was Bradley right? When he's saying this about Rural/Metro, should we be concerned?"

I know you should be concerned, because the cost of ambulance service just across the border in Buffalo is way higher than it is across the border in Fort Erie. That's Rural/Metro providing that service. They'll want that. When they get into fire services, if they're allowed to, they'll start off by providing the service at a lower cost. Maybe the cost will be lower and sustained at a lower level, but the degree of service, the kind of service, the quality of service will not be nearly as good as it is at the present time.

The use of volunteers around the province is accepted. There are many communities that have volunteer fire departments. They work in conjunction with our professional firefighters in many communities. I don't think you should try to portray a situation where you want to mix up part-time firefighters with volunteer firefighters. When we talk about part-time firefighters, they are part of a regular fire department in a community in a city such as St Catharines.

You're going to allow now some part-time people in under the provisions -- that's the concern, some part-time people -- so that you don't have full-time firemen and firewomen in the fire department fighting the fires. There's a great deal of concern about that.

You're talking about the call-back system. That is, a municipality, presumably, would be allowed to understaff a firehall and, let us say, not have the regular number of firefighters in that firehall ready for an emergency. Anyone who understands anything about fire services in a community, however, understands that the initial response of the fire department is exceedingly important. A fire doubles in size very quickly, every minute.

For instance, if you were four minutes into a fire, you have 16 times the size of the fire normally that you would when you started out, so you want the fire department to get there as quickly as possible, not have to phone somebody else who is on part-time to show up at the firehall but rather to be able to go out and suppress that fire immediately. You'll save money in the long run, particularly in insurance rates and in insurance payouts.

I invite members of the assembly to look at the US experience. We now have the Internet. You can get all kinds of information on the Internet about some of the dire experiences south of the border. It's just a matter of time until that comes here if the advisers to the Premier are to have their way, as opposed to perhaps some of the government members who might be able to persuade the Premier otherwise in the caucus, although I know the consequences of doing that. My friend Gary Carr is no longer a parliamentary assistant; he was to the Solicitor General, I believe.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Why?

Mr Bradley: He dared to speak out, I think, on some issues. Of course in this government one is not supposed to speak out. The ones who move up most quickly are those who are, shall I say, closest to the Premier -- I'll leave it at that -- in terms of their agreement with the Premier; I'll even clarify that further.

We lost the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. Maybe he had a different view on this particular item; I don't know. I kind of think he did. He's a more practical person than many of the people I see who are unelected.

This bill is clearly on the side of management. I think what you have to have when you bring in legislation is a balance; you have to have something that will satisfy both, that will draw consensus from both. I think you've altered this bill substantially on the side of management as opposed to the front-line employees and ultimately the people of the communities they serve.

I want to emphasize the importance of the hearings. We have, as I say, representatives of firefighters in the gallery today, and have had for some time, and I want to tell you, I haven't seen a group that has been more dedicated in putting their case before the committee. Every day, they were there. Every day in every community, they were there, so that they could monitor the hearings, so that they could monitor the representations which were made and come up with corrections and responses appropriately.

If it weren't for these individuals and the work of the opposition parties, my guess is we would have seen even fewer changes than the modest changes that we've seen on the part of the government to the original legislation. So those hearings that we in the opposition fought for were exceedingly important.

I'm sure that firefighters would prefer not to see a vote today. I agree with them on that, because that's what third reading is about. Why should the government not proceed with third reading? I think I have given many of those reasons.

It is not mandatory for municipalities to provide fire suppression services. We expect they're going to, but there's no mandatory provision, and I'll tell you why that is. That's because the Ontario government is now downloading on municipalities, so those who are involved in fire services are going to be worried.

They're saying, "If the provincial government is downloading more and new responsibility, with new costs tied to that new responsibility, on the backs of the municipalities, then those involved in providing firefighting services are going to have to be in a position of fighting for every dollar they can get," because we know that the provincial government would like to go to the people of this province and say, "See, w

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	1997-05-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p36 s1 1997-05-14 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1a28480669a1f572de11d033e6e06b5e94a3f87c

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).