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

June 5, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L200 - Thu 5 Jun 1997 / Jeu 5 Jun 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TARTAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TARTAN

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

TARTAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TARTAN

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH SECTOR TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT PANEL

DORIS SILK

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

SENIORS' INFORMATION PACKAGE

AIR QUALITY

HUGH SIBBALD

POLLUTION CONTROL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MINE RESCUE COMPETITION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

YAD VASHEM

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

EDUCATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

WAGE PROTECTION

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

CARIBANA

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

YOUNG OFFENDERS' FACILITY

CARIBANA

NORTHERN TRAIN SERVICE

VOLUNTEERS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

INCO STRIKE

SUPPORT FOR THE DISABLED

POLLUTION CONTROL

LABOUR LEGISLATION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

GAMBLING

RENT REGULATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

TAX REDUCTION

NORTHWESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NOT-FOR-PROFIT CREDIT COUNSELLING SERVICES ACT, 1997

MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO) INC. ACT, 1997

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TENANT PROTECTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DU PROCESSUS D'AUTORISATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE

COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR UN ENSEMBLE COMPLET DE MESURES VISANT LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TARTAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TARTAN

Mrs Ross moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 132,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario / Projet de loi 132, Loi visant à adopter un tartan officiel pour l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Mr Speaker, before I begin I wonder if I could ask for unanimous consent for the members to wear the swatches that are placed on their desks.

The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mrs Ross: It is with great pleasure that I open the debate in this House on my private member's bill. If passed, this proposed bill will establish an official tartan design or pattern as one of Ontario's provincial symbols, similar to the trillium or the amethyst.

I know members would agree with me that symbols are important in both our public as well as our private lives. Symbols represent our identity and how we understand each other and each other's values, now and in history. As such they are not simply reminders of the past; they are dynamic ideas that can inspire our imaginations with pride and guide us in how we continue to face the challenges of the present and the future.

Some may ask: Why a tartan as a symbol for Ontario? How may a tartan, an expression of Scottish culture, be a representative symbol for all Ontarians, given the reality of our multicultural society?

The answer to these questions is that an official tartan pays tribute to the many and varied contributions of Canadians of Scottish ancestry to Ontario and to Canada. Given the dynamic nature of the tartan itself, it can also form part of a meaningful heritage to those of us, myself included, who are not of Scottish ancestry.

Tartans are an ancient form of dress used by the Scottish highlanders. Consisting of a repeated chequered pattern of threads, it was and is worn by members of Scottish clans for purposes of identification with both the clan and the clan's territory. Tartans were first recorded in history by Julius Caesar in France, where he first observed Celtic tribes.

The tartan kilt, a pun or a play on the word "Celt," while looking like a type of skirt, is actually a descendant of the earlier battle garb that was worn by Roman soldiers. The tartan can also be worn in the form of a dress; a sash, similar to what I'm wearing; a scarf or tie, the tie being at one time simply a large bandage that crusaders wore around their necks to be prepared for any eventuality of being wounded.

There are different types of tartans that are used for different purposes. Dull-coloured hunting tartans were developed by clans to make them look less conspicuous while they were out hunting. Mourning tartans are worn at funerals and for all sad occasions. Apart from the familiar clan tartans, there are district tartans, which identify a person's residence in a certain district, whether the person belongs to the dominant clan or not.

There are many precedents in Scottish history and culture that show how people who are not related to clans by blood or ancestry can be identified with either clan or territory and may as a result wear the tartans associated with them quite meaningfully.

Smaller clans which did not have their own tartans often sought refuge and protection under greater clans and so were adopted by them. Scots who came from the lowlands or who were otherwise not entitled to a tartan of their own could always wear one of the universal tartans, including the Black Watch, the Jacobite or the Caledonia tartans.

It is perfectly legitimate for a subject of the Queen, for example, to wear the Royal Stewart tartan, regardless of his or her cultural background. Since this is the Queen's own tartan, the wearing of such is a demonstration of loyalty to the crown or to the royal Stewart line. As a matter of fact, my colleague Mr Al McLean is wearing the Stewart tartan today and I'm sure he'll address that when he speaks.

The Ontario tartan is a district tartan, as I have mentioned. It represents not the cultural or other ancestry of a people but the district or territory itself and those who reside within it, regardless of their background.

Since the Ontario tartan reflects territorial loyalties, it is as legitimate for an Ontarian of Scottish background to wear that tartan as it would be for an Ontarian of French, Polish, Hungarian or Italian background to wear it as well.

The Ontario tartan pays tribute to Canada's Scottish heritage and the impact of Scottish culture on our history and development as a nation. In fact, the tartan has always been numbered among Canada's official symbols, beginning with Nova Scotia, which received its armorial bearings from King Charles I. Canada's coats of arms have always contained Scottish symbols, like the unicorn, the thistle and others.

The tartan is therefore a historic, 350-year-old Canadian symbol that belongs, by right, to the common heritage of all citizens of Canada.

With the exception of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland, all other provinces and territories of Canada have official tartans, including a number of municipalities and organizations. The nature of the tartan is such that a number of states in the US have adopted their own tartans and in fact an official tartan was developed especially for the bicentennial of the American Revolution.

The direct impact of Scottish culture on Canada has been and continues to be significant. Sir John A. Macdonald and other fathers of Canadian Confederation, who laid down the legal and legislative bases of the new nation of Canada, were Scots.

The University of Toronto was begun as King's College by Scots educators and community leaders. The Ontario Agricultural College was begun by a Scot named Fergus, who now has a town named after him. Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, was another famous Scot, as was Sir Allan MacNab who lived in Hamilton's famous Dundurn Castle.

In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find even one aspect of our history, culture, laws and government, indeed our way of life, that was not positively impacted by the Scots. This is a heritage of which all Ontarians of all cultural backgrounds can be justifiably proud.

It was this heritage which led to the development of Canada's modern multicultural society, defined by the values of tolerance, understanding and mutual appreciation for our cultural distinctiveness. It was this heritage that laid the foundations for our province's growth and stability, foundations upon which we all are privileged to continue to build. In paying tribute to our Scottish heritage, we are thereby also paying tribute to all others who likewise have made and continue to make significant contributions to the life of our province.

Just as we are all the beneficiaries of the economic, educational and political contributions of Canadians of Scottish ancestry, so, with Bill 132, will we be able to celebrate the fact that that ancestry is part of our cultural identity as are other citizen cultures of Ontario.

The structure of the proposed Ontario tartan, as you will see by the sash that I'm wearing, is based loosely on the Macdonald of Clanranald tartan, the tartan of Sir John Sandfield Macdonald, the first Premier of the province. The subtle shades of green represent our province's forests and fields, while the red is symbolic of our first nations. The blue represents the waters of Ontario and the white line represents the sky above the province.

The tartan was designed by Mr James MacNeil of Toronto in conjunction with the chair of Scottish studies at the University of Guelph, and Mr MacNeil is in the gallery with us today. I thank him very much for helping me on this.

As a Canadian of Polish and Hungarian ancestry, I am proud to be Scottish by marriage. The clan of Ross is a deeply historic one in Scotland and was governed at one time by the famous King of Scots, Macbeth. It was William Ross who led the Ross clan at the battle of Bannockburn and helped procure Scotland's independence.

The fact that one need not be Scottish to meaningfully wear a tartan, that the tartan in fact belongs to all the people, regardless of their background, who live in a territory is for me the most significant aspect of this symbol. It honours the contribution of one great community in Canada but allows all others to adopt it as their own.

In closing, I ask all members of the House to support this legislation. It is time, I believe, for Ontario to join most of the other provinces and territories in declaring an official district tartan in recognition of our vibrant Scottish heritage and as a vehicle of cultural sharing, understanding and participation by all Ontarians.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): As I sat here listening to Mrs Ross, I just wondered how many of the prominent Ontarians that she referred to -- and of course the Scots are known for their frugality. As you know, I'm of Dutch birth and descent and we share an awful lot of that in common with the Scots -- but I'm just wondering how many of these prominent Ontarians that she talked about would have agreed with the whole notion of giving people a tax cut when at the same time the province is still running a deficit. I am quite sure they would not agree with that.

Having said that, I've got to congratulate her on bringing this forward, because I think this is a good idea. As you know, I represent the riding of Kingston and The Islands, and of course we are very proud in Kingston and The Islands of having Sir John A. Macdonald as the first Prime Minister of Canada, as a member of both this Legislature and the Parliament of Canada for a number of years.

Indeed, on June 6 every year, which happens to be tomorrow, we commemorate the anniversary of his death, when we all gather around his gravesite in the Cataraqui cemetery and once again relive some of the splendours that Sir John A. was involved in. We will all be there tomorrow at the 106th anniversary of his death, since he died in 1891.

Of course there are many other prominent Ontarians who weren't of the Conservative mould who also are of Scottish descent. One would just have to think of Sir Oliver Mowat, both of whose parents were Scottish. He, I believe, was the longest-serving Premier of this province, for some 24 years. He also happened to represent the Kingston area in the provincial Legislature, and we are extremely proud of the heritage that he brings to our area as well and to the province of Ontario.

Of course the person who comes to mind immediately when we think of Scottish heritage is Mitch Hepburn. His father was Scottish and his mother was Irish. It always reminds me of the anecdote that he used to tell. He showed up one day during a political campaign at a gathering on a farm and there were hundreds of people there. When it was his turn to speak he was asked to address the crowd. I guess he wasn't a very tall man and he wanted to make sure he could be seen by everybody. The only thing that was available was a manure-spreader.

He jumped on top of the manure-spreader, looked at all of the people in the gathering and said, "You know, it was very nice for once to be able to stand on the Tory platform." That's the sense of humour I'm afraid quite often is lacking nowadays.

Of course, there's one other thing I want to say about the Scottish heritage that we are extremely proud of in my riding of Kingston and The Islands, and that's Queen's University, one of the oldest universities in Canada. I think it's one of the renowned universities in Canada as well. It was founded by the Scottish back in 1841 and it has been going for 150 years.

As a matter of fact, this coming Monday, June 9, there will be a gathering of all of the people who have graduated from Queen's University who have anything to do at Queen's Park, whether they're elected members or whether they're staff people or whether they work for the various ministries. We certainly invite them to the reception that will be attended by both the chancellor of Queen's University, Peter Lougheed, and the principal of Queen's University, Bill Leggett, down in the dining room at about 5 o'clock.

Congratulations, Mrs Ross. I am more than pleased to support this particular motion.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I am very pleased to be able to represent my party this morning and to congratulate Mrs Ross on bringing forward this bill. Bill 132 is only surprising, in my view, because it hasn't existed in Ontario earlier. It is indeed an important occasion for us all to celebrate the design of this wonderful tartan and the fact that we are discussing in this Legislature the importance of this kind of symbol in joining us together.

I am of Scottish heritage. My father's family, named Watt, came from Huntly in Scotland in 1837 to Glengarry county, where the farm still belongs to the family. It's one of those amazing things of heritage that even though that's so far back, everyone still talks of Scotland as home, even though many haven't visited. I have and my father did, but it is a very interesting tie that Scottish people in Canada have to what they regard as their homeland.

The wearing of the tartan is one of the ways in which people express that loyalty and that sense of pride and that sense of history, that sense of being rooted in a culture, in a people that has struggled hard always against inhospitable climate and very difficult land conditions to make a living, to raise families and to build communities.

When I was growing up our Scottish heritage was always present to us because my father loved the sound of bagpipes. He had played a snare drum in his high school and at Queen's University in the pipe band and it was part of his blood. It became part of ours too because one of my memories is that my father would march up and down the living room with the latest baby on his chest, gently burping the baby to the sound of the pipes. So, when I hear the pipes, it has a very immediate effect on me, in a very visceral way, I should say.

Where we grew up, our holidays always had to be organized so that we could attend the Glengarry games at Maxville. In those days, of course, there was no Highway 401, so you took the long trip down Highway 2 on the way to Lancaster where our family was. Through town after town, we would see signs of the Scottish people who had come before and all along the St Lawrence had built settlement after settlement. I think it becomes important for us to share that cultural experience.

When I was Minister of Education some years ago I was invited to the Charlottenburgh high school and I'd like to share with you that Charlottenburgh in Glengarry has a tradition that is of long standing. This was the high school that my father and his brothers and sisters and all my cousins attended. In Charlottenburgh high school they have all the tartans of all the clans of all the students in that school around the walls.

In recent years, as we have become more and more aware of the necessity of being inclusive of other cultures, symbols of the many other cultures of the students have joined those tartans. So when the member for Hamilton West talks about this as being not something that is parochial or celebrates only one culture, she's right, because it fits very well with other cultures. I would really encourage people to see that, because I think there are 23 other cultures represented by symbols that are important to them that have joined the clan tartans around the walls in the auditorium in the Charlottenburgh high school.

One of the things that is important about this notion of putting a district tartan for Ontario is this issue that others then have a right to wear it. Scots tend to be quite jealous about their tartans. As Watts, we are members of the Buchanan clan. Those of you who know your tartans know that the Buchanan tartan is very strongly yellow and red and orange, very bright and very noticeable, not at all what you would wear to hunt, for sure.

When I married, I married a Boyd, who of course is a member of the Stuart clan, and then there was an array of tartans that were available, from the brightness of the Royal Stewart to the Hunting Stewart to the Dress Stewart, all of those possible and indeed enjoyed by all of us. In my husband's family, one of his cousins never appears in public without his Stewart tie. It's sort of his trademark. So it is an enjoyable way of celebrating every day the kind of heritage that we have enjoyed in terms of being Scottish people.

When we think about the kinds of traditions we have, it helps us to remember the history out of which they arose. Indeed, the wearing of the tartan goes back to Roman times at least. Of course, if you talk to people who have done studies of the Picts and the Scots and the settlement of Britain and Scotland, Ireland and Wales, they talk about the various ways in which the brooch that attaches the tartan has significance. The whole way in which it's worn has a difference, depending on what your function is at that particular time.

Just outside the cabinet room on this floor is a picture that, while it may have dubious artistic merit, certainly is a cultural reminder of the Scots who farmed this country. It shows a picture of a man in a kilt plowing the land, breaking the land early. It is a symbol right there for all of us as we walk by to remember that the kilt is not just a uniform, it's not just for bands, it's not just for dress occasions or for special occasions.

The kilt was worn and continues by some people to be worn as an everyday form of dress, providing for those who are fond of wearing it a sense of freedom, warmth but ventilation. Certainly when you see people who wear the kilt on a normal day-to-day basis, they do so with a sense of comfort and a sense of pride that is indeed pleasurable to watch.

Maybe it's because I come from the Buchanan clan and married into the Stuart clan that I find the design somewhat dark. It could be, but I don't think so. This is a non-partisan occasion, but it certainly has a lot of blue and green in it, which suits this government very well. We've all just come through a period of time when seas of blue and green were very visible, so I think it is rather fitting that the government of the day would choose to bring forward a tartan of this sort.

All teasing aside, the meaningfulness of the different threads and the way they are woven together and the way in which they join the symbolic meaning of the various colours is very important in tartans. We always had handy in our house Clans and Tartans of Scotland, a little handbook, and it was always a contest to try to identify the clan that was being represented by a particular tartan. We used to laugh, frankly, about district tartans, because they always confuse you, because they aren't clan-related; they are meant to be something that is symbolic of belonging to a broader community.

It is very important for people to understand that the creation of a district tartan, which all the citizens of Ontario can enjoy wearing, is something that will preserve the sense of Scottish culture but will also be much more inclusive than it is at present.

Because the British Empire spread far and wide across the world, it is not unusual in former colonies to see people who do not in their physical appearance resemble Scottish people wearing the kilt in bands and in marching order, showing that the heritage has been adopted right across the world. It is exciting to think that when we have special occasions in Ontario, it will be possible for us to have that kind of inclusive way of showing that Scottish culture is shared, perhaps not by blood but by choice, by people all over Ontario.

The home of my heart is Bruce county. Bruce county has a district tartan and they're very proud of their district tartan. My cottage is close to Kincardine, and those of you who know Kincardine may know that everything stops on Saturday night throughout the summer while the Kincardine pipe band marches up the street and then down the street, followed by all the citizens and certainly all the children. Then there's a pipe concert in the park.

Before there was a bypass for Kincardine, all the traffic on Highway 21 had to stop during that period of time, between 7 and 8 on a Saturday night in the summer. That was just taken for granted. People had to plan their trips so they wouldn't hit Kincardine when the pipe band was playing because it didn't matter how important it was, you simply didn't go through the town when the pipe band was playing.

What we see in that part of the country is a great pride among people from a varied heritage in that particular celebration. It is really quite a sight, and one I invite people to see. I see the member for Bruce isn't here today, and I'm sure she's sorry she's missing this discussion. If she were here, I would not have mentioned this, because she would have had an opportunity to talk about her town of Kincardine and how proud they are of their Scottish heritage and the wearing of the tartan.

Because the Kincardine Pipe Band is a regular band, they have chosen a tartan that they wear as a band, but in the summer one of the things they do is that anyone who is in the district who plays is invited to join the band. On Saturday nights you often see, of course, the members of the band with the band's tartan on, but you also see people with many different tartans. It's very interesting. People always ask the visitors what tartan they're wearing and why they're wearing it and a little bit about history.

It really is very much a part, for those of us who are part of Scottish culture, to enjoy that kind of thing. It is good to see those traditions continued, and continued in the more inclusive way that you're suggesting in this bill.

I was very pleased that you'd clearly been coached, even though you're not of Scottish heritage yourself, to be very careful to talk about Scots and the Scottish as opposed to Scotch, because some people get confused. I can remember my father all his life reminding people that Scotch is a drink and a Scot is a person. You didn't fall into that trap, but it is one that you could easily fall into.

I'm very supportive of this. You have designed a beautiful tartan. I think it's one that all Ontarians can be proud of. I certainly hope we will pass this bill for first reading today and that you will have no difficulty persuading your House leader to bring it forward for second reading before the end of the term. I think it would be a very good thing for this to go through, and I certainly hope that all of us in this Legislature will be supportive.

In closing, I want to say to my colleague across the way, Mr McLean, that I was sorry we missed April 6, Tartan Day, this year. It kind of passed in a blur because we were all here for 24 hours a day and we missed the date. He's having an opportunity to wear his tartan jacket today and to celebrate his heritage today.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): It is a privilege to rise in support of private member's Bill 132, which is brought forward by my colleague the member for Hamilton West, Mrs Ross. It also gives me the opportunity to wear my Royal Stewart Scottish jacket, which my wife made for me. I'm proud to show it off because of the number of hours of work that went into making it. Not only that, but the McLean tartan is very close to the Royal Stewart tartan, so it is a bright colour also.

As a Scottish Canadian and a member of the Clan McLean, I want to congratulate you and thank you for bringing this bill forward, a bill that honours our province's Scottish history and the memory of so many Scots who helped settle Ontario and make it the great place it is today.

The tartan, as we have already heard from the member for Hamilton West, can represent a district in which one resides, and this is certainly the most ancient use of the tartan. The other familiar type is that of the clan tartan, such as that of McLean, to which I belong and whose tartan I am proud to wear. For me, as a Canadian of Scots background, the McLean tartan is a source of pride in what my ancestors accomplished both in Scotland and in Canada. Like its bright colours, the McLean tartan knits all McLeans together. That is what the tartan has always done for the Scots clans and districts.

I support this bill because I believe that an Ontario tartan can help knit together Ontarians of many different backgrounds as a symbol shared in common by all.

Like so many Canadians, I too trace my ancestry far away from the shores of Canada. The McLeans came to Canada in 1832 and settled in Oro township, county of Simcoe. My tartan is a constant reminder to me of that fact.

Having held extensive lands in the western islands of Scotland, the McLeans fought many victorious battles. Fiercely loyal to their clan chief, seven McLean brothers once died during one battle, one after another, in defence of Hector McLean. As each one fell, he shouted, "Another for Hector." This became the war cry of the McLeans. In 1910, Sir Fitzroy McLean repurchased Duarte Castle, the ancient home of the McLean clan.

In 1804, in the pre-Confederation province of Upper Canada, one Allan McLean was elected as the representative for the county of Frontenac. He was re-elected three subsequent times, and in 1812 was elected to the Speaker's chair. Mr McLean was also among 16 lawyers appointed by Lieutenant Governor Simcoe with the purpose of establishing a core of accredited legal practitioners for Upper Canada.

At the outbreak of the War of 1812, Speaker McLean joined the provincial militia and served for the duration of the hostilities. In 1812 he was given the rank of lieutenant colonel of the first regiment of the Frontenac militia.

Upon his return to the Speaker's chair, McLean was put in charge of a Legislative Assembly that dealt with such matters as the establishment of a legislative library, the regulation of common or public schools, Upper Canada's commercial relationship with the United States, the commission responsible for roads, and the relationship between Upper and Lower Canada, or what are now Ontario and Quebec.

I am proud that a McLean was here in Ontario in the latter part of the 18th century to establish our province's foundations side by side with Lieutenant Governor Simcoe. And I'm proud that I am able to follow in the footsteps of a McLean in this Legislative Assembly and work on behalf of the people who elected me, just as he did. The Ontario tartan will serve to remind me of the great contribution of a McLean to the legislative tradition that continues here at Queen's Park.

I want to remind you all that once a year in Orillia we have the Scottish Festival. That is on July 20. There's a parade, and bagpipes from all over the county and other places in the province will be there, and they will have the drum major. It is a fascinating day to listen to the pipes and drums.

I want to thank the member for Hamilton West for bringing this resolution forward, and I hope we will also have unanimous consent on this bill.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): You may wonder why someone who is obviously of Italian descent would rise and not only compliment the member for Hamilton West for bringing this matter to the attention of the Legislature but indeed support the bill.

I do so for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that half of my family is in fact steeped in Scottish history. The Carmichaels have a long-standing tradition. They trace their name back to Mary Carmichael, a handmaiden to Mary, Queen of Scots. That's how far back the name goes. The current lord of the manor of the Carmichael clan still presides over the clan, which is now dispersed all over the world, in a town called Carmichael by Biggar in the south of Scotland. So it is with some pride that I rise to commend the member.

The first Carmichaels in Ontario traced their roots to about 150 years ago with a Duncan Carmichael, who came to settle in Ontario. You will find Carmichaels everywhere, from the Bruce Peninsula, which I, like one of the former speakers, have a strong fondness for, to other parts of the province.

I also speak as a former chair of the governing council of the University of Toronto, an institution which, as you know, was founded by some outstanding Scots, educators and community leaders who felt it was important to have an institute of higher learning in the new land. What they were able to initiate has become one of the premier institutions of this country. Indeed, the excellence of its students is recognized worldwide. I think that too is acknowledged in this bill, and I'm proud to do so.

As a person of Italian heritage, let me say, wearing my other hat for a moment, that we share a great deal in common with the Scots. There certainly has been a love affair between Italy and Scotland in literature and in history. I will remind you briefly of Sir Walter Scott and the wonderful things he had to say about Italy and the much time he spent there. We on the other hand in Italy, according to tradition, invented the bagpipes, probably something very few people know.

It was the shepherds in the mountainous areas of Italy, the Apennines, which form the backbone of Italy, that used a miniature version of the bagpipe called the cornamusa to marshal the sheep. I guess it was around the time of the Romans that the instrument was exported to Scotland, and there of course it made a big hit. I don't think it has ever had quite the attachment for Italians that it has had for Scots.

We take no credit for haggis, and proudly so, but we do respect the tradition that goes with it.

I will say that the most recent exploits of the Scots are something that we should all be proud of, the recent experiments in cloning; the kinds of opportunities that will provide are staggering. I only worry that we may have a situation where the Scots will take over the world and force the bagpipes and haggis on all of us through a cloning exercise, but I expect they would be judicious, as always, and that will not happen.

We of Italian origin of course laid claim to Canada before the Scots did. June 24 of this year marks the 500th anniversary of the landing of the Matthew, skippered by Giovanni Caboto, a citizen of Venice. That is certainly the definitive date here in Canada for discovering Canada. I suspect he probably had a Scot or two on board, but I'll leave that to other members to discover.

That seems to me fairly self-evident. We have a tartan that represents our shield. We have a tradition in this country of tartans, and it would seem to me a moot point that after so long we simply make it official.

There's only one thing I would say to the member, that if this Legislature does pass Bill 132, and I certainly hope that will be the result, we then take the next step. Simply passing it in this Legislature does not make it official. It has to be recognized by Scotland, by the King's Lyon college, I believe, which is equivalent to giving an imprimatur to the coat of arms and therefore making it truly official.

I'm happy to support this bill and I commend the member for bringing it to our attention.

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph) : I am proud to rise this morning and join the debate on private member's Bill 132,

An Act to adopt an official tartan for Ontario, and to commend my colleague Mrs Ross, the member for Hamilton West, for bringing this tribute to Ontario's Scottish heritage forward.

For instance, the Elliotts: The Elliotts are a border clan and take their name from the village of Elliott in the shire of Forfar. Some Elliotts have had interesting stories. For instance, one branch of the Elliott family, the Elliotts of Stobs, originated in the 16th century, and in 1666 one Gilbert Elliott of Stobs was created a baronet of Nova Scotia by King Charles II. In 1718, George Elliott, a son of the third baronet, became governor of Gibraltar, and according to the history books, in 1779 Governor Elliott defended the Rock against more than 100,000 attackers over a period of nine weeks and was credited by historians with one of the greatest achievements in British military history.

In the 17th century Gilbert Elliott worked for religious freedom and for his efforts he was condemned for high treason in 1685. Fortunately he was pardoned and then, interestingly enough, was made a lord after that. Does this matter to Ontario at all? In fact, the interesting thing is that his pioneering work was instrumental in the later movements for religious freedom in England. It greatly influenced the thinking of one John Graves Simcoe who, when he became our Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, would be the man to outlaw slavery and give equal land and settlement rights to the clergy for both the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches.

Today I wear not the Elliott tartan but the official city of Guelph tartan. This actually resembles quite closely the proposed Ontario tartan. Many of the colours are similar: red, green, blue. We have gold instead of white and we have more black. The colours in the city of Guelph tartan actually appear in our city official arms and crests. In fact, the design and the thread count for the city of Guelph tartan came from the MacRae hunting tartan.

Of course, most of us will know that Colonel John McCrae, who is honoured through this tartan, was a soldier, a poet, a physician, a native son of Guelph, and of course, famous for having written In Flanders Fields, the poem that we all know and particularly remember at Remembrance Day.

MacRae was a Scottish family from which many famous clergymen are also descended. Duncan MacRae, living in the 16th century, compiled many Gaelic poems and so contributed to the development of Scottish studies. I am delighted that this tradition is continued today in the city of Guelph through the Scottish studies program at the University of Guelph. Mrs Ross recognized Mr Jim MacNeil in the audience today, who was instrumental in helping develop the tartan plan. In that regard, this will be unique among Canadian tartans.

Guelph's agricultural college, for which we are famous throughout the world, was also founded by a Scot, Mr Fergus. Of course, the town of Fergus is named after him and is now home of the famous Fergus Highland Games.

Scots were academic leaders in Britain and continued to be so when they came to Canada. The University of Toronto started out as King's College, also founded by Scots.

The city of Guelph is very proud of having been founded by Scots settlers. We have in our city a very famous landmark called the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception or, fondly, the Church of our Lady. It is our city landmark and is an outstanding example of church architecture. What most Guelphites do not know is that this cathedral stands on land that was donated free by a Scots Presbyterian to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Guelph, also a Scot. This is an example of the inclusiveness and tolerance of Scottish culture, a heritage that all Canadians are proud to call their own.

It is one that is reflected in our modern, multicultural society, where our religious and cultural differences are shared, understood and celebrated.

The Scots are heirs to the Celtic tradition, a tradition that at one time in history actually covered more than half of Europe. Celtic studies, such as at the University of Toronto, are reviving now the ancient wisdom of Celts and their mystical approach to life and nature. We all are familiar with the rise and interest in Celtic music; we're even noticing it in our films today.

This Celtic tradition is in fact the origin of the district tartan and reflects the geographical area and its natural beauty. Of course, the proposed Ontario tartan also reflects Ontario's geography as well as its history and the representation of our first nations people and of our first Premier, John Sandfield Macdonald.

In my view, the Ontario tartan will serve to remind all Ontarians of the beauty that is Ontario and of our common responsibility to protect it for the benefit of future generations. I am very proud to support this private member's bill, and I do so because I believe it will enhance our multicultural society by encouraging us to appreciate our heritage.

At citizenship court in Guelph two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of welcoming 75 people to Guelph from 27 different countries.

When we share our cultural differences we are united. Our communities are grounded on this principle. The tartan is an example and a celebration of cultural uniqueness. It recognizes the contributions of the Scots who have worn it in the past and will benefit all of us to choose to proudly wear it in the future.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this debate and inform the member I'm proud to support the bill. As an Ontarian who was born and raised in Sarnia -- my family apparently came to Canada around 1840 somewhere. We're mongrels. As much as we can figure, we're Scots who arrived here by way of northern Ireland.

My earliest memory -- I guess it's not a memory. I was baptized by Dr MacGillivray in St Andrew's Presbyterian Church in downtown Sarnia. Dr MacGillivray, who was quite famous throughout Presbyterian life at the time, was once a moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Right beside St Andrew's there was a small stone building that was built by Alexander Mackenzie, who we would all know was the second Prime Minister of Canada. I can remember quite clearly my memories of this relatively small stone building he had built.

Actually going to Lakeview Cemetery in Sarnia, where he lies today is one of the little landmarks up in the northwest corner. As someone who, as I said, is a mongrel, I'm pleased to be married to a Ferguson, whose lines are much more clear.

One of the things we don't really understand is that Scots came to Canada through a long period of time. There's no one point of which you could say, "This was the Scottish immigration." They came over a long period of time and were a significant part of the Ontario political and business scene, out of all proportion to their numbers. They were the leaders of commerce. By 1870, although they represented only about 16% of the province, they represented, either direct Scottish immigration or sons -- and daughters, I suspect -- of Scottish people, half of the entrepreneurial business class of Canada.

To be a little provocative today, I might quote -- and this is provocative I think in the Scottish community -- this book by John Kenneth Galbraith, something you might not expect from John Kenneth Galbraith, a book called The Scotch. I just want to read a little bit of it. It says:

"When the Scotch settled by the lake in the early 19th century in what was then called Upper Canada, they found the political life of the colony a comfortable monopoly of the privileged. At the apex was the Lieutenant Governor, an appointee of the crown, and almost invariably a retired general (or sometimes lesser officer) of Wellington's armies. Surrounding him and advising him were Anglican bishops, businessmen and minor members of the aristocracy who had `come out' from England to make good and were starting in at the top.

There have been, one imagines, more wicked oligarchies than the Family Compact as it was called. But, undeniably, it ruled in its own behalf. Its members took all the posts of privilege and profit under the crown. Trade favoured its merchants. Most important, land grants went to its members, or to the Church as the real estate holding company for the Compact, or to those who were in a position to pay the people who granted the land. One of the rewards of an utterly secure social position has always been the ability to take bribes from lesser folk without loss of dignity or sense of demeanment.

The Scotch ranged themselves in political opposition to the Family Compact. Those by the lake needed very little education on the subject for they had been forced to obtain the land from one of its more prominent members, the eccentric, profane and bibulous Colonel Talbot."

The history of Scots in Ontario was one that gave rise to the birth of the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Liberal Party of Ontario came from a Scottish heritage. Those are the Liberals of Ontario's roots. As a matter of fact, the first five Premiers of this province were Liberals and three of those were Scots, one named Ross, by the way.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): This is a bill which is long overdue, an official Ontario tartan which recognizes the great contribution of our province's Scottish heritage.

Having the honour to represent Cambridge, our community's foundation was established by Scottish immigrants from Dumfries settling in Shades Mill, which subsequently became Galt and later, along with Preston and Hespeler, Cambridge. The descendants of the Scottish immigrants of the early 19th century remain an important part of our rapidly expanding community. Cambridge's founding father, William Dickson, made a wise choice in the location of Shades Mill on the heritage Grand River.

We celebrate our community's Scottish heritage by the annual Cambridge Highland Games, held this year on Saturday, July 19. It is renowned as the most prestigious highland games in North America.

Cambridge is also the home of the Highland Fusiliers, formerly the Highland Light Infantry. Our regiment defended our country in two world wars and Korea and proudly wears the Mackenzie tartan.

I compliment the member for Hamilton West, a member of the Ross clan, named for the first Earl of Ross, established in 1226. I commend Mrs Ross for her choice of a modified Macdonald tartan, honouring Ontario's first Premier.

Tartans date from the third century AD, the clan tartans from the 17th century. The author Martin Martin wrote in 1703: "Each isle differs from each other in their fancy of making plaids, as to the stripes and breadth and colours. This humour is as different through the mainland of the Highlands in so far that they who have seen those places, are able, at the first view of a man's plaid, to guess the place of his residence."

There are several

definitions of clans. Some refer only to Highland tribes. Others regard it as a synonym for family, or in fact any group of people acting with a common interest. The latter certainly describes Ontario and its citizens.

I am honoured to support Ontario's first official tartan.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton West, you have two minutes.

Mrs Ross: It's interesting. When you bring forward a bill you're never quite sure where the debate's going to take you, and the direction we end up in always amazes me.

I want to thank the member for Kingston and The Islands, who was right: Mitch Hepburn did say, "This is the first time in my life that I've spoken from a Tory platform," when he was referring to the load of manure he was standing on. But the response at the time was, "Throw 'er into high gear, Mitch, she's never had a bigger load on."

I want to thank the member for London Centre very much. She spoke very well to the unique characteristics of the Scots and the fact that they are truly possessive and very jealous of some of their -- haggis is one, for example, and the bagpipes. When my husband and I are anywhere near bagpipes, you can bet your bottom dollar we're going to be there till they're finished playing, because there's nothing like the sound of bagpipes to a Scot.

The member for Simcoe East mentioned quite rightly that the member for Grey-Owen Sound brought forward April 6 as Tartan Day. I commend him for doing that and I know he would have wanted to be here today.

The member for Downsview mentioned a different tartan that has been around but has never really been accepted by the police or the fire services, those people who notably wear tartans. This is in fact the official tartan.

The member for Guelph, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and the member for Cambridge, I thank you very much for your comments.

This is a true Celtic symbol, and I think we should all be very proud to wear this tartan. I hope we'll have quick passage through third reading.

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I move private member's notice of motion number 56:

That in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario requests the Solicitor General consult with municipal and police stakeholders to develop standards to ensure that residents of rural areas of the province of Ontario receive adequate and effective police service to protect their communities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Hardeman: I'm pleased to put forward this motion today, as setting the standards will go a long way to allay the concerns of my residents in Oxford county as they relate to the changes being made in law enforcement.

I personally have some mixed feelings in putting forward this resolution. I've been a strong proponent for many years of local autonomy, that decisions that affect the local basic services should be the responsibility of local government, but at the same time, I think people across the entire province are entitled to adequate and effective policing. Crime doesn't stop at municipal borders, nor should the protection from or the stopping of that crime and the apprehension of the criminals be different in different areas of the province.

As former Solicitor General Allan Pilkey said on April 22, 1992, "It's a basic right of people in this province of ours to be guaranteed public safety." He went on to say, "It is the responsibility of this government to ensure that this very right is in fact protected."

Our government has been doing that over the past couple of years. The Solicitor General has made a number of changes in police services, including the governance, the provision of services and the funding of those services. The governance and funding issues have been debated for many years, with no resolution. Through the Who Does What exercises we were able to realign the services and provide the ability for municipalities to become completely responsible for the provision of municipal policing, or in fact all policing.

Through Bill 105 the province has changed the makeup of police services boards, putting them under municipal jurisdiction. The policing has already been provided by our urban municipalities; the changes made in Bill 105 relate more to their control over the money they've been spending in the past. But the other major change is to rural policing in Ontario, which has in the past been provided by the OPP and put on the provincial tax rolls, provided by the income tax of the province. Bill 105 deals with these inequities.

It also allows the municipalities to provide police services in the most appropriate manner for their purposes. Rural municipalities which have been getting OPP protection will have the option of contracting with the Ontario Provincial Police, with other municipal police forces in their area, or they can set up their own police force or jointly with other municipalities. This is where I see the need for provincial standards.

As the municipalities put out for pricing for the OPP protection they wish to contract for, the OPP will put forward a price based on the present expenditure and the present level of service the OPP has been providing. That will be deemed to be the appropriate level of service, which in the past has been set by the province.

When the municipalities receive such a quote, they may deem it inappropriate or, the price being too high, under the bill they may look at other options -- to contract out to other municipalities or to set up their own police force -- but they will have no standard on which to base their decision. If another police force puts forward a tender, there will be no way to measure the adequacy of policing as it relates to the two contracts, so I feel they will be making a decision based strictly on price, not on the adequacy of service. Bill 105 includes a provision for all municipalities to provide "adequate" policing, but there is no definition of what would be considered adequate.

It may be quite easy to suggest that the adequacy is what they are presently getting, but I think there would be many

definitions of what would be considered adequate in different municipalities.

I've received a number of items of correspondence from constituents in my riding who believe that the present OPP protection is not adequate. This discussion or this complaint has not just started recently; it has been going on for some time. As I was putting forward this resolution, I went through a number of Hansards, and there have been a number of discussions over the years. Particularly in 1992, I read from the former Solicitor General's comments as to the government being criticized for not providing adequate OPP protection, yet the law was that that is what we were doing.

I think it's very difficult to define adequacy, and I believe with this resolution we will provide the opportunity to actually define the level of service and the type of service that must be provided across the province.

I also think it's very important in the resolution that it is not done through the mandate of the provincial government, that they just force these standards upon municipalities. I think it's very important that the ministry consult with municipalities, with the police stakeholders and with the public as to what would be deemed to be adequate.

I would point out that I have a letter that was sent to me a number of months ago. It was drafted by a local committee on community policing, and it was sent to point out what they deemed to be the inadequacy of policing as it presently stands and their wish that the government would do something about that. I would just like to highlight a few of the items that are in this letter.

The first item is: "I would like to remind you that one election promise of Premier Harris was preservation of law and order.... The most important issue and the one which needs immediate attention is the preservation of law and order, to re-establish civility in our lives. Those living in rural areas are seeing less and less patrol cars and police officers. It is time for local and rural community policing" to be established.

It's a rather long letter. They go on and talk about the individual items we should be doing. They list some 17 different items. I don't propose to go through them all, but I think there are one or two that are rather important as they relate to this issue.

Two I would point out are: "Victims of break-ins and vandalism are repeatedly victimized, through lack of local patrols.... Most parents and the majority of the general public need to have restored to their lives a feeling of control, security and civility. They need to be listened to, heard and responded to by governments of all levels. The time has come to stop relying on the opinions of the so-called experts."

I would just like to read the last paragraph at the bottom of the letter. It says: "I await hearing about the discussions on these concerns listed and am hopeful that all members of Parliament will see the need for change has come. There are many frustrated victims of crime who out of frustration don't come forward to the police to submit a report due to the feeling nothing will be done about it. Criminals and the general public need to see the police in action, to feel that there is action and that something will be done."

I think it's rather important as I read this letter -- it is signed by a concerned citizen who also happens to be a municipal mayor. I think they too realize that the issue of protection and law enforcement is a very important issue and they think the government should move forward on that.

As I said when I started my presentation, I think it's very important that the Solicitor General look at the setting of provincial standards, as we look at all the other good changes he's making in this area, to make sure that the level of policing will be available to all citizens of the province, that it will not be restricted to certain areas.

Finally, I want to point out that this resolution in no way implies that the present level of municipal policing, which of course is 80% of the policing in the province, is of a substandard nature. This is being put forward strictly to make sure that as we go to municipal policing in all of rural and northern Ontario, the citizens of the province may count on the type of policing they've come to expect, or had hoped would be improved upon and not be reduced to the level some members of our municipal community may want to go to.

With that, I look forward to the support of all the members of the Legislature to put this forward to the ministry.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I find this resolution absolutely extraordinary. Here we have a parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Municipal Affairs asking this House to support a resolution that requests that the Solicitor General deal with municipal and police stakeholders to develop an overall policy.

It is unbelievable, first of all, that he would bring it here because surely to goodness this is what the Solicitor General, who's involved with policing in this province, should be doing right from the very beginning. What the heck is going on here? We have a member of the government in effect admitting that obviously those consultations aren't taking place right now or they're not taking place in an adequate manner. This is precisely what's going to happen, not only in the policing area but in many other areas as a result of the downloading this government has done to the municipal tax base.

Let's just remind the people of Ontario that as a result, and as part of the downloading package, $180 million that used to be paid by the province for community policing will now be paid by the local taxpayers. You can't have it both ways. You cannot expect the province to have control over all policing standards and at the same time have the cost of all policing now being paid for by the local taxpayers, particularly in those small rural municipalities that don't have the kind of tax base that can afford this kind of thing.

They are now going to get a tax bill on an annual basis for the first time ever, starting January 1, 1998, demanding they pay X number of dollars for the kind of policing, OPP policing, that presumably they're going to get. Nobody seems to know how they're going to adjudicate as to who pays what in these rural areas. It's left up in the air and a lot of the local councils are extremely concerned about it.

I will not be supporting this resolution because I assume this kind of negotiation and consultation is already taking place between the Solicitor General and the policing authorities and the municipal stakeholders in this province. If it isn't, then I say to this government, get on with the job.

The provincial government ultimately is responsible for the good maintenance of law and order in this province. Let's not forget that although all governments over the last 20 or 30 years have talked about all these wonderful partnerships they have with local municipalities, municipalities legally and from a practical viewpoint are still creatures of the province. In other words, it's up to the province to determine what kind of services and level of services can be delivered at the local level.

I'm simply saying to you, Parliamentary Assistant, that I hope the impact of this resolution is already happening on an ongoing basis because the residents of Ontario are ill-served if it's not already happening.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I'm going to think about this in the next half-hour to determine whether I'm going to support the resolution because I'm so puzzled by it, quite frankly.

I agree in one sense with the member for Oxford, though. I don't trust his government either. I agree with you that with what's going on there may have to be standards for policing in rural communities. It may come to that. It's strange we've never had to do so up until now and you have to wonder what's triggering this concern among the government members, since it was never necessary before. To that extent, I agree with the member for Kingston and The Islands that there's something strange happening here.

Does the member for Oxford fear that the Solicitor General and the Minister of Finance are not going to provide the level of funding to municipalities that will allow them to provide an adequate level of police services?

It's my understanding that there are some inconsistencies out there now in policing, with the OPP providing it, in some cases at no charge, in other cases with a charge and so forth. I understand the inconsistency of what's out there in the province now. I can remember struggling with that issue when we were in government as well, so I do understand the problem.

But I don't think most people feel that the level of policing is substandard at this point. Nobody ever has enough cruisers on the streets, or the police on the street that they'd like to see, but at the same time we'll never get to that degree because of the cost of doing so.

The member says that a municipality, if it's now receiving services by the OPP -- I don't want to misquote him; I think this is what he's saying -- can either pay for that service or make an arrangement to have their own police service or contract with another municipality, presumably a neighbouring municipality.

It's my understanding the Solicitor General's not allowing that. My information is that if a municipality tries to make an arrangement with a nearby municipality, an adjacent municipality, they're being told no, and I don't understand that. If I'm wrong I stand to be corrected, but that was what I and some others of my colleagues were led to believe, that this wasn't being allowed. I don't understand that at all. Perhaps the member for Oxford, if he has time in his wrapup, could shed some light on that because I'm concerned about it.

If you simply say that there must be a certain standard of police services, but you engage in downloading to the extent that municipalities have enormous difficulty -- there are lots of municipalities with very low levels of assessment -- if a municipality cannot provide the standard you think is appropriate and which may be appropriate, I might add, but they can't afford to do it without enormous tax increases at the local level, what moral authority do you have to set a standard? About the same level of moral authority the federal Liberal government has to impose health care standards on provinces if it's not providing the funding to do so.

That's what is bothering me about what your resolution is trying to do. I think it's a well-motivated resolution, I'm not questioning that, and I applaud the member for Oxford for bringing it forward, but I'm concerned about what this could lead to. It could lead to you people saying, the Harris government saying: "We're going to stick it to you in the form of downloading, but you've got to have standards that we will set. You'll have no say in those standards and you'll have no say in any money that comes from the province either, because it won't be coming at all."

You cannot have it both ways. You can't download to the degree you are and then think you have any moral authority to set standards at the municipal level. That's not appropriate. It's not fair to the municipalities and I don't think you can get away with that; I don't think you should get away with that.

I want to leave some time for my colleagues to speak on this. As I said at the beginning, I want to listen to this debate for a while and see whether I personally -- not that that will cause you a great deal of angst, I know -- will support this resolution.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): It's my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General to indicate our support for this resolution and to recommend it to the House. I don't want to repeat the excellent arguments made in favour of this resolution by the member for Oxford, but I do want to draw to the attention of the House that there's a reasonable consensus from many sources throughout the province that we should move in the direction he recommends, and I might indicate that the ministry is indeed moving in that direction.

NDP Solicitor General David Christopherson, Ottawa Citizen, December 1993:

"It is our intention to implement equitable police financing, which means all Ontarians...pay their fair share of policing, and right now, we don't have that.... We'd like to obviously do it as quickly as possible, because we'd like to institute fairness [and] clearly the province needs the revenue."

The 1994 Provincial Auditor's report recommendations:

"The Ministry," of the Solicitor General, "in conjunction with the OPP, should:

"More actively pursue eliminating inequities in the financing of municipal police services;

"Collect all payments due but still in arrears; and

"Ensure that all municipalities are consistently charged on the basis of full cost recovery."

The NDP government's response to 1994 auditor's report:

"The ministry is committed to the principle that everyone should pay their fair share of policing costs."

"The ministry has also identified the need to address the issue of municipal contracts being in arrears more effectively."

"Older municipal contracts that are not at full cost recovery will be addressed either in the context of equitable financing or a renegotiation."

A London Free Press editorial, November 14, 1996:

"The unfairness of small and rural communities getting policing at 100% provincial cost, through the OPP, has long been a bone of contention in Ontario. The [Crombie] panel recommends that smaller communities start paying municipal money towards policing, just as their larger counterparts do. That's only fair."

We've heard a couple of comments about standards. The Who Does What changes are of course a wash overall and a fund is available to help municipalities that have problems. I would like to make it quite clear to the House that it is our intention to ensure there is adequate policing throughout the province. That is the responsibility of the province and we are going to make sure that happens.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm going to echo many of the sentiments that my colleague from Kingston and The Islands gave just a few minutes past. It is a very curious resolution that causes me some grave concern. I, like my colleague from Kingston and The Islands, would have expected that with the downloading of the full cost of police services to our rural municipalities -- I live in a rural municipality and was the clerk-treasurer of that municipality for 10 years.

I'm very concerned about this downloading to the rural municipalities and the ability of the OPP to provide pertinent and appropriate policing with the revenues they're going to generate from this per household levy to our rural municipalities.

In northern Ontario, where we look towards the OPP to basically provide all our police service, when major incidents happen, with the highly technical detective work and the search teams, for instance, there's a lot of money there that I believe should be borne by the province as a whole and not just by our particular area.

For instance, we'll have many hunters and anglers come up from southern Ontario or from the United States. Incidents occur and major search-and-rescue operations have to be initiated. Is it fair that our small group of townships that are served by the Haileybury detachment of the OPP have to finance all that? There's a very big concern there about what the per capita or per household charge is going to be to our homes and to our farms. That's another point I want to make in a minute, about the other downloading of the farm tax rebate that I think is going to complicate this.

It's very important that our municipal officials not only be consulted, but that through Bill 105, which dictates this downloading of costs to our rural municipalities, they are on a police services board and that there be adequate representation from our municipalities, as people have had in towns that have provided their own police services in the past. It's important that there be representatives from all the rural municipalities on police services boards so that not only is there an initial consultation with municipal and police stakeholders to develop the standards, but there's ongoing monitoring of how the police are servicing our rural communities.

What really concerns me is that we do not, in the government's zeal to cut costs, underfinance our police services in Ontario. This is a concern of every citizen of this province, that our police and justice system have the resources required and necessary to do the job. Rural Ontario, while we all still love to view it with the pastoral images of the past, unfortunately has probably moved into the 21st century with everyone else in this province, and our crime rate is growing in rural Ontario as it is everywhere else. That's sad, because most of us used to keep our houses unlocked until a few years ago. Many of us no longer do that.

We have high crime rates also in rural Ontario, and there's no reason to try to hide that fact or pretend it isn't so. So our policing services are even more important today than they have ever been in rural Ontario. We need to make sure that the resources are adequate and that the policing standards are adequate for our area. It's very important that there be that partnership with our rural municipalities in some formalized way so that our local detachments know there's a body to be working with, like a police services board, and that on a monthly basis there can be a formalized way of communicating what the needs are for our communities. That's very important.

It's interesting that this particular downloading of police costs happens to our rural municipalities at the very same time as another substantive download to our rural municipalities, and that is that now municipalities are going to have to pay for the provincial government's share of the farm tax rebate. That means that many rural municipalities that substantively rely on the farm and farm land assessment for their revenues are now seeing a shortfall of 75% of those revenues.

Of course, what the municipal councillors are going to have to do to make them up is raise the mill rate across the board on all classes of property. Therefore, the farmers' residences and all the other homes in the rural communities are going to have to pay much more local tax to make up for the 75% cut that has been given to the municipalities from the provincial government.

Rural households and families are going to be hit with two big double whammies at the same time -- actually three: The downloading of the farm tax rebate is going to substantially raise taxes on their home; the new per capita cost to provide policing in their community is going to be coming to hit; and then of course with all the new downloading responsibilities of these municipalities now, still paying for the health unit, the ambulance service and others, there are three major areas of cost that are going to have to be covered now by our rural homeowners.

We're going to see, starting next year and the year after, a tremendous increase in property taxation, especially in rural townships. So I certainly understand why the member, being from the government side, is probably pretty concerned about this, because the municipal officials, all the reeves and councillors and township administrators out there, are going to be very upset with the bills coming in if they don't have a say in how the police enforce the law in their community. It's going to be very, very important.

I'd say to the member that while I agree with the member for Kingston and The Islands that really this shouldn't be necessary, I can understand why you're concerned about this. I'd be concerned too, if I was on the government side, that we're downloading all this cost but I don't see a mechanism to make sure our community leaders are assured that the OPP are going to give adequate service or that they have the resources to give adequate service. That's going to be a big problem. You've identified a problem here, and I hope your resolution goes a bit of the way to try to solve it.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): In the few minutes I have to make comment, first of all, I received a letter from the member for Oxford asking for support of this resolution, and I'm curious as to why I should be supporting this resolution when you're talking about standardizing police services throughout the province.

In the area that I come from in northern Ontario there was an agreement, an understanding that was made by the former Conservative government back in the 1970s, that if the municipalities wanted to eliminate their municipal police forces, which happened in Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Hearst and then a few years ago at Kapuskasing, they would be supplied with OPP services.

Now they're in the process of looking at the downloading that is happening, not only are they going to be charged for the cost of policing but all the other services that the Who Does What panel is dumping on to municipalities, and they're concerned about how much they're going to have to increase their property taxes so that the Conservative government can give their 30% tax break. Reduce the cost of the provincial government under the Conservatives and the property taxes are going to have to go up to pay for that. Everybody understands exactly what is happening.

As far as standardizing is concerned, I'm sure that there are a lot of communities -- the municipal leaders or the unorganized areas -- that don't want necessarily the same type of policing that might happen in a community of 15,000 or 20,000 people. They have a population of 1,000 or 2,000, and if they see a cruiser around once in a while, they're happy with that type of service.

On the other hand, from what I can understand, the town of Hearst even by setting its own standards is going to have pay around $220 per household, starting on January 1. In other communities it's $200; in some it's $250. If the Solicitor General through this private member's resolution is saying that he's going to set the standards for all of the communities whether they be rural, unorganized or whatever in northern Ontario or rural southern Ontario, he's going to be also saying how much the municipalities are going to have to raise taxes or a head tax on the unorganized areas that have been receiving OPP services for the last number of years.

The way I look at the resolution, when you're setting standards and saying you want an adequate and effective policing in rural and northern Ontario, the local people should have a say on what services they're delivering and what they have been satisfied with over the last 20 years. As I say, a lot of them abandoned and got rid of their municipal police forces with the understanding that that would never come back again.

I understand that some municipalities that are close to larger municipalities that have their own municipal police force are being discouraged from working out agreements with those municipalities. They're saying, "No, you should be going to the OPP and buying these services rather than working out a cheaper deal with the larger municipalities."

Some municipal leaders are saying to me, "What does this mean with Bill 108 as far as sharing the costs of revenue coming in from court cases, fines and whatever are concerned? Is that going to mean that some municipalities are going to have to have a quota system, get out there and whip their OPP officers or their police force to say, `We need more revenue. Bring in more revenue because that way we don't have to raise the taxes as much'"?

With the Solicitor General -- if this resolution was to pass -- setting the standards, he would be the one that would be forcing the municipalities to increase their property taxes and in turn just give the money away that's coming in as a 30% tax break to the wealthiest people.

While we're looking at private members' resolutions I'm a little bit wary: Is this actually a private member's resolution that is here, or is it a Mike Harris resolution that is to rake in extra revenue and force up property taxes so that we can give a bigger tax break to the wealthy people? I'm very uneasy as to who is writing that resolution. We see that the rules of the House are being changed and we see a private member saying, "I wrote up those rules," yet we find out now that it was coming directly from the government House leader and the Premier.

With that, I still haven't made up my mind whether I'm going to support this resolution. It's highly unlikely, but I will leave some time for my other colleague who wants to speak on this.

Mr Bruce Smith (Middlesex): It's certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak briefly this morning on this issue as well and, as could be expected, to support my colleague from Oxford in his effort to seek approval of this particular resolution.

I always find it remarkable the extent to which the member from Kingston and The islands goes to enforce his commitment to the status quo and his reluctance to change. I guess from an NDP perspective there's a viewpoint of apprehension this morning, but I know, with the former Solicitor General here today, that there was, in my mind at least, an indication, and I don't wish to imply motive or put words in his mouth, but I think there was a genuine understanding that there had to be a need to address how police financing was arrived at in this province, and one that needs to be addressed as we move into the future.

It certainly is an important and critical issue to rural residents, particularly residents in rural and northern Ontario, given the issues that will stem from the discussions surrounding the Who Does What debate and certainly the intentions to move to a municipally funded police system. I think it's critically important as well, not only to those who are delivering the services but to those people who are involved in the administration of those services, to find and have the opportunity to speak their mind in terms of what issues of concern are presenting themselves to them.

As well, I think it's critically important to the public at large because they are the ones -- and I think this is an issue that certainly extends beyond this government's assuming office, in terms of my experience as someone who has grown up in a rural area, someone who is familiar with the challenges confronting rural policing. That issue is at the forefront in the minds of many rural residents in terms of where we go and the expectation and delivery of service we can anticipate in the future.

It is appropriate to reflect upon Sir Robert Peel, who was the founder of the first modern police force in London, England, in 1829. He left us with the following thought: "The police are the public and the public are the police." I think that provides a very sound framework from which we can move forward to discuss this issue as it applies to establishing a municipally funded police system. As well, it provides us a framework that addresses the type of changed environment we are in. This whole issue, in my mind, this resolution being advanced by my friend and colleague from Oxford is certainly an important first step to addressing a number of issues applicable to policing in general.

This first step must, in my mind, be accompanied by issues such as structure and organization, police function, governance and the ability to measure the adequacy of police services in this province. I think it's important to remember as well that about 83% of Ontario's population are policed by municipal or regional forces, about 2% of our population are currently served under contract with the Ontario Provincial Police force and about 15%, or about 576 municipalities in this province, are provided with police services at no cost to the municipality.

This is really the group or sector that the member's resolution is being sensitive to. I think it's important that we look at that, but not necessarily in isolation of policing issues in general. In fact, I am very confident that the Solicitor General himself has a sound understanding of the changed environment that we're in, the expectations that we're having of municipal partners with respect to this particular issue.

I know and am certainly pleased about the time he has given to county officials from both Middlesex and Elgin counties, the opportunity for them to sit down with the Solicitor General and provide an overview of their thoughts, concerns and opportunities with respect to assuming and being involved in a municipally funded police system. That dialogue and consultation is very beneficial in terms of where we want to go and in ensuring that we have some positive conclusions around this issue.

As I mentioned earlier, as someone who has been raised in a rural community and represents a predominantly rural riding, this issue certainly is at the forefront for many constituents in Middlesex and in other rural areas. I think at times, as the member for Oxford has emphasized, there is a degree of uncertainty that presently exists with respect to the type of service people can expect.

There is a degree of apprehension to the extent that in many cases crimes are simply going unreported because there is concern that the nature of those crimes won't be investigated in a timely manner. There is a degree of discomfort there at present. It's something that certainly needs to be addressed and can be addressed in the context of revisiting how services are financed and the other functions that I alluded to earlier.

In January 1996 I had the opportunity to host a public forum in my own riding on issues surrounding rural policing matters. Some 300 people attended that particular meeting, and I think it was evident at that time that there was concern. There was certainly a desire to see new opportunities pursued with respect to how we're financing police services and where we want to go in the future.

That meeting certainly provided a basis for me to gather a sound understanding of those concerns locally, and I have taken full opportunity of advancing those concerns to the Solicitor General. As I said, I am fully confident that the Solicitor General understands the nature and concerns of residents, as well as those individuals who are administering police services in the province.

As well, I've taken the opportunity to participate in a ride-along program with OPP officers. I think it's important to have an understanding of the very issues they are dealing with on a day-to-day basis: the distance, the challenges they face with respect to responding to incidents. That's provided me with a sound background in terms of some of the issues that need to be addressed as we move into this discussion.

As well, it's important to realize that the Solicitor General has moved to examine and review police services in Ontario. The discussion paper that was released in May of last year provides a strong framework from which we can work to address the issues that the member for Oxford has raised. Certainly I think this type of framework provides an action plan that facilitates dialogue. It facilitates meetings between county representatives, as I've alluded to. It provides a framework for local public meetings, and I think it certainly provides strength to the resolution proposed by my friend and colleague from Oxford.

In conclusion, I would simply say that I'm obviously supportive of this resolution. It's very near and dear to the hearts of many of my constituents in Middlesex. I'm supportive of my colleague's goals to seek fair and proper provincial standards and an appropriate standard or level of protection so that all residents receive an adequate level of protection in the province. I think that's what, by and large, many residents are looking for. They want to understand the ground rules. They want to understand what they can expect from police services in this province.

In conclusion, I'd simply say that I think the resolution is indicative of the expectations of municipal leaders to provide that framework, to provide an element of fairness. It meets the expectations of law enforcement officials. But most importantly, the resolution goes a long way to providing adequate direction so that the residents, rural and northern residents and particularly residents in Middlesex county, have a clear understanding that the issues that are of concern to them are being appropriately addressed by the Solicitor General.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): An interesting resolution, to say the least. The member opposite is trying to bring in a resolution that would indeed put the province in a fairly interesting position. As has been mentioned before, simply put, the provincial government is cutting transfer dollars to municipal governments, which is going to affect policing.

I know in the city of Timmins the police services commission and the council have to deal with how you operate a municipal police force with fewer dollars. One of the things they're actually looking at is merging the Timmins city police in with the Ontario Provincial Police. At the same time, the Ontario Provincial Police have been having some difficult times over the last number of years.

In fact, if you go to communities like, I would imagine, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls, Matheson, many of the communities that are serviced by the Ontario Provincial Police, you've been seeing less and less of an OPP presence in those communities because of budget cuts and a whole bunch of other issues as far as how the OPP have been affected by what's been going on over the past number of years.

What the government member is asking here is that we put in place some sort of mechanism to make sure there are standards that are followed when it comes to community policing. I think specifically what he's getting at is that he's trying, in the case of rural Ontario, to make sure we have adequate policing. I'd say to the member across the way, one of the first things you've got to do if you want to make sure there's adequate policing is to support police budgets.

Let's cut to the chase here. The government has an agenda, and that agenda is to cut expenses in Ontario by some $9 billion over the life of their government. You can't do that without affecting essential services. If you take a look at what's happened in fire services and you look at what's happening in police services, those particular services are being affected by the budget cuts. The member can't have it both ways.

You can't on the one hand stand on a ticket of the Common Sense Revolution and of Mike Harris and the Conservative government saying that you want to have all these cuts and in that same document say you're not going to affect essential services and on the other hand, once you're in government, ask for these kinds of resolutions, because it is by way of your cuts and by way of the policies of this government that community policing is being affected.

The only thing I'll say in conclusion -- I've only got a couple of minutes and I just want to take the chance to make this point: Government has a role and a responsibility in the communities across Ontario, and one of the things this government doesn't seem to understand is how important a role government should play. They're trying to make people believe that government is a bad and an evil thing and that if we remove government entirely, we'll all be the better for it. Well, that's what government is all about. Government is about providing policing to our communities.

It's about making sure we have fire services in case of fire emergencies, making sure our roads are properly maintained, and in some cases, where traffic warrants, increasing roads. It's about making sure we have health care, all those services the public depend on.

When you have a government such as this one that does not believe in government, campaigns against it and says to people, "Government is an evil, terrible thing, and we need to get out of the lives of people," this is the cost you pay once you start implementing that agenda. The services that are affected aren't some airy-fairy services that people never hear about and never think they're going to get affected by; they are services like the police.

It's about making our communities safe. If you don't have the dollars to support municipal police forces and the Ontario Provincial Police, and coupled with that you have economic terrorism going on in the province by some of your policies, you will start having people living in communities feeling less safe as time goes on. If on the one hand you don't have proper policies to support people economically and on the other hand you don't support the police adequately, the security in our communities is going to deteriorate.

I think this is a sign of things to come. The parliamentary assistant recognizes that the policies of his government are going to affect community safety and he's asking that some sort of standards be put in place so that when all of these cuts come to bear on municipalities, municipalities take on more and more of the responsibility of the provincial government. I say to the parliamentary assistant, you can't have it both ways.

I haven't got a problem with your resolution and what you're trying to do, but I want you to understand that the reason you're having to bring this resolution forward, in my opinion, is the cuts that are happening with your government. You, sir, don't trust your own government. I think that says a lot about this government.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I'm pleased to stand today in support of this resolution by Mr Hardeman, my neighbour in the adjoining county of Oxford. I'm aware of some of the policing problems in Oxford and another neighbouring county, Elgin, as well as my area of Haldimand-Norfolk. I also represent the town of Tillsonburg, which is in Oxford county.

This resolution "requests the Solicitor General consult with municipal and police stakeholders to develop standards to ensure that residents of rural areas of the province of Ontario receive adequate and effective police service to protect their communities."

The choice of a structure of policing in a particular community is a local decision. It's made based on the public safety needs of the community being served. I feel this resolution is timely for those people in my area, the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. Right now this area is undergoing a review of police services in order to determine if services should be delivered region-wide by the Haldimand-Norfolk region or by the OPP. Currently urban areas are covered by the regional police, headquartered in Townsend. OPP services are provided for rural areas based out of two detachments in Cayuga and Simcoe.

While the debate is over service and which service will provide the lowest-cost policing, uppermost in people's minds is the quality of service, especially emergency services they may receive, to achieve the best protection. Indeed, emergency service, whether it's fire, ambulance or police, is on the minds of rural residents, as the perception of those in rural areas is that sometimes we feel we may not be receiving the same level of service that our city and urban counterparts may be benefiting from.

There are inequities in funding and service which currently exist across the province. There is an inherent unfairness in that many communities receive services through the provincially funded OPP while at the same time other communities are serviced through municipally operated services funded through property tax. It is of course reasonable that all municipalities pay for the cost of policing, and again, in their own community, through their municipal property taxes. At this time, 576 municipalities do not pay directly for their local policing, while their neighbours are paying their fair share.

With respect to this resolution, I feel it goes hand in glove with the direction which has been taken by the Solicitor General and this government. On December 21, 1995, the Solicitor General announced a comprehensive review of police services which focused on how police services are structured, financed and governed.

What's to prevent reductions of police budgets and reducing police service delivery if municipalities are given control of the budget? First of all, local taxpayers decide; they inform their municipal council how much policing is enough. Second, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services will ensure both adequate and effective police services are provided. The commission can determine budget disputes between police service boards and councils after a hearing.

In addition, the Solicitor General will develop regulations for adequacy standards. To ensure all Ontarians have adequate policing, five core functions have been identified: crime prevention, law enforcement, emergency response, assistance to victims and maintenance of public order.

This resolution, in my mind, clearly identifies the need for standards and regulation which this government will implement. It is our duty as legislators to provide regulation for standard of service which can be applied province-wide. It's what our constituents expect of us. This resolution addresses that point accurately and I will say eloquently. I'm honoured to have my name stand in support of this resolution.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): This resolution has already been termed curious and is one that we have a lot of concern about in terms of what Mike Harris is actually trying to do when we talk about the downloading on municipalities, and now we have a private member coming forth talking about standards. First of all, we find out there's going to be downloading, but now they're talking about standards that go along with the downloading to municipalities that's going to occur. It's something to be concerned about.

In rural northern Ontario we have many unorganized territories but we also have many communities that are unique in terms of their policing needs. One community will differ from another in very many ways. Some communities will have an influx of people from the north into their communities at various times. Other communities throughout the north will have an influx of tourists. At that point they of course need more policing, more services. Taking any kind of power away from those local police boards, the boards that see the uniqueness of their particular community, is a little bit disturbing and something I'm truly concerned about.

The member for Renfrew North asked the Solicitor General not too long ago about policing in areas such as provincial parks and who will pay the bill, who will pay for those policing needs and for any emergencies that might occur in those large areas of the province.

He really didn't get a definite answer, but I think through this resolution we're beginning to see that this government is going to develop the standards but put the bill down to what Mike Harris always referred to as being only the one taxpayer, that of course being the taxpayer in the municipalities, who is going to be responsible through this resolution for coming up with the particular standards that are outlined here to ensure that residents receive adequate policing.

I go back to that user fee. Mike Harris at one time, in the Common Sense Revolution, said, "No new user fees." What we're seeing here is in essence a user fee coming through the back door and a very curious resolution as to where it is going, what it is going to do in terms of the needs of that local taxpayer.

Some of the other members have referred to it already as being a way that this government is going to finance that 30% income tax reduction. They can say at the end of it all, "We did what we were supposed to do; don't worry about your tax bill," which has been raised some percentage at the local level because you have to cover costs such as this that have been downloaded on the municipalities.

I go back to the original point in terms of the uniqueness of not only the unorganized territories throughout northern Ontario but the uniqueness of individual municipalities. I've given examples of those that face different circumstances at different times of the year, whether it be an influx of a large percentage population because of the tourist season, whether it be an influx at certain times of the year because of transient traffic coming in from the north. They know their needs and they know what they are going to need in terms of services during those particular times of the year.

I think it's the local police board that is going to have to determine the standards that are asked of them by the local population and asked of them for those very unique and special circumstances that they face throughout the entire year.

I'm going to have trouble supporting this resolution. I will not be supporting it for those very facts that I've stated.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you to all the members who spoke to the motion. I appreciate those who spoke in support of the motion and recognize that the intent of the motion was to provide the consultative process with which the Solicitor General could approach the issue of providing adequate policing throughout the province.

It's very important to recognize, as the members across the aisle were suggesting, that the needs in northern Ontario as they relate to adequacy may be different than the needs in southwestern Ontario or in the urban centres. I appreciate their concern but I would point out that I think the process of consultation with the parties involved is the only way to reach those standards that the residents of the province have a right to expect.

I appreciate the comments from the last speaker as they relate to the government recognizing that there is only one taxpayer. The issue becomes more and more important that we provide the best possible service to that taxpayer that we can for the dollars that are available. I would point out that presently, as was mentioned by the member for Middlesex, 82% of provincial residents pay for policing out of their property tax and it was fair that the whole province does that.

I think this provides the opportunity, as we look at the realignment of all the provincial and municipal services, to come to an equitable delivery of those services, that we now look at the policing issues and put them in as part of that package. I think this is the appropriate time to come to that fairness that not only this government but previous governments have pointed out in this Legislature was needed.

I thank them for the suggestions and I look forward to their support to the resolution.

TARTAN ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE TARTAN

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 81 standing in the name of Mrs Ross. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mrs Ross has moved second reading of Bill 132. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Mr Speaker, can I ask that it be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee?

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

RURAL POLICE SERVICE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll now deal with ballot item number 82 standing in the name of Mr Hardeman. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Hardeman has moved private member's notice of motion number 56. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1159 to 1333.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH SECTOR TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT PANEL

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today to congratulate the Minister of Health on a partial return to sanity. In this respect, the minister four weeks ago took the only program there was to help displaced hospital workers -- this minister at an earlier date claimed not even to know of a single nurse who had been laid off under his administration, but thousands have been -- and cancelled it summarily. He left hundreds of people who had been given separation agreements from hospitals and so on in the lurch. He said at that time that something else would happen for them, that the hospitals could handle it.

As per many of the initiatives this government has tried in the field of health care, it simply didn't work. Just like the doctor deal, the minister has now had to reverse himself. The HSTAP program has at least partially been left to continue to make up for the mistake the minister has made. The minister has seen part of the error of his ways and has been willing to recant.

We congratulate him for reinstating at least part of the HSTAP program. While this will help 500 workers who were left high and dry by the minister's actions, it doesn't help hundreds more who had yet to apply for the program, and people in public health fields and other fields who have been subject to the downsizing initiated by this government.

The next time the minister puts his programs under examination, we would wish for him not to just shoot first and ask questions later, but to listen to the people, particularly the people in the health system, before he pulls out his gun.

DORIS SILK

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Some would see the community of Ontario as the sum total of all the year-end financial reports of corporations, organizations and businesses. Others, however, see it as much more than that. Ontario is a conglomerate of communities and neighbourhoods of people, wonderful neighbourhoods and wonderful people striving to be the best they can be.

In those communities from time to time, among the literally thousands who give leadership and volunteer their time and energy, we centre out a particularly outstanding person. In Sault Ste Marie next week -- Tuesday, June 10, to be exact -- my community will be honouring, with a special benefit dinner, the contribution of Doris Silk.

To quote from a letter from the Lung Association, for which Doris works:

"Doris Silk is the epitome of a volunteer. If it needs doing, she does it; if she thinks you might need her, she calls. Doris really cares for her community and has given countless hours of her time for many great causes.... Her care and concern for her community is admirable and she sets a wonderful example for others to follow."

The first time I met Doris was on the bus on People's Road. How prophetic that was and in keeping with the theme that knits her life together.

Today, with the thousands of people in Sault Ste Marie who have benefitted from the efforts of Doris Silk, I say, Doris, thank you very much.

ANNIVERSARY OF D-DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): On June 6, 1944, the greatest armada ever assembled sailed from Britain to France to begin the liberation of Europe from the Third Reich. More than 30,000 Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen, including many fine young men from Ontario, were directly involved in the largest single invasion of the Second World War, D-Day. Too many never returned.

On Christmas Day 1941, Hong Kong fell to the imperial forces of Japan. Most of the brave young Canadians stationed there were captured and sent to concentration camps. These prisoners of war were subjected to the most horrific conditions, including slave labour, starvation and torture. Many perished. Those who survived will never forget the unspeakable acts of cruelty inflicted upon them.

This Sunday, June 8, 1997, many of the dwindling number of war veterans in my riding of Simcoe Centre will gather at the cenotaph in Barrie to mark the 53rd anniversary of D-Day. They will also honour the veterans of the fall of Hong Kong. I will join them and pause to reflect on their great sacrifice, a sacrifice that helped preserve the freedom and democracy we all enjoy today.

I ask all members to pause now in a moment of silence to remember and honour those brave souls who sacrificed so much and asked so little in return.

SENIORS' INFORMATION PACKAGE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My statement is addressed to the minister responsible for seniors' issues. I am holding up the seniors' information package which was provided by the former office for seniors' issues. The fact sheets included in this package proved an invaluable source of information and helped the seniors in our province keep up to date on the wide range of programs and services available to them.

This package was last updated in 1995. You have now been holding the position of responsibility for seniors for the last nine months. Minister, I'm asking you to update this seniors' information package so that seniors can be helped to be well informed about the programs and services available to them.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): It's the least he can do.

Mr Sergio: Absolutely the least he can do.

Failing to do that, you are not being responsive to the needs of the growing older population and you're not ensuring that seniors' interests are well served. Seniors need and ask to be kept informed. Many are poor and don't know where to get help. Seniors want to be independent and not to have to rely on others for information on services.

Minister, the seniors of Ontario are your only interest group, your only constituent group. Do the right thing, update the package and provide the necessary information and the correct information for seniors to rely on.

AIR QUALITY

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Yesterday the Minister of the Environment announced what he called a "student-led air quality initiative" that will get students involved in monitoring air quality. Now let me be absolutely clear: I'm entirely in favour of environmental education and believe it should be an integral part of the education curriculum. What concerns me is that this minister is using students as a smokescreen for Mike Harris' cutting and slashing of the environmental protection Ontarians have come to expect.

The minister went on to say that he hoped this initiative would "help the public better understand air quality issues." Frankly, that's insulting. The public understands full well that every summer a cloud of brown smog will hang in the air over much of Ontario. They know this is bad for their family's health and they're very aware that your cuts to monitoring and enforcement staff in your ministry aren't going to help that one bit. We continue to wait for vehicle emissions testing, which I, Pollution Probe and others have been calling on for quite some time now.

Yes, let's get young people involved in environmental issues, but let's be equally sure that government holds up its end of the bargain and exercises its responsibility to protect Ontario families from deadly air pollution which, as the minister himself said, takes 1,800 lives annually in our province.

HUGH SIBBALD

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): A constituent in my riding of Durham-York has been elected president of Resorts Ontario, which represents 220 resorts in southern Ontario and the near north. Hugh Sibbald the 37-year-old vice-president of the Briars Resort in Jacksons Point, takes over for a two-year term at the helm of Resorts Ontario. He follows in the footsteps of his father, John Sibbald, who served in the post in 1966 and is the association's current honorary president.

Hugh Sibbald and the Orillia-based Resorts Ontario are dedicated to the tourism industry. Tourism is one of the largest industries in Ontario. Tourism generates more than $12 billion in revenue annually. Tourism attracts more than three million visitors. Tourism is also the largest employer of young people in this province.

Hugh Sibbald recognizes the numerous challenges he faces during his two years as president of Resorts Ontario. They include educating Americans about what Ontario has to offer and the exceptional value of their tourism dollar; bringing all the disparate groups associated with tourism together; and making the public aware of how important tourism is to the Ontario economy.

I want to congratulate Hugh Sibbald and Resorts Ontario. The tourism industry is made up of many pieces of an intricate puzzle. Each interlocks to create an attractive package to visitors.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): People in Ontario thought they had seen everything that could be done by this Minister of the Environment in his dismantling of the ministry over the past year. What a shock is the speech that the minister gave this morning at the Delta Chelsea hotel in Toronto. The great brainwave in 1997 in Ontario is that the minister is now considering implementing something called -- and you won't believe this -- an emission trading pilot project in Ontario.

What that means is that companies now will be given so many points to pollute. You get up to 100 points to pollute the environment. Once you've exceeded your 100 points of pollution, instead of getting fined or instead of the ministry cracking down, you can buy more points from a neighbouring company that, as a good corporate citizen, doesn't pollute. Therefore, you keep polluting and you simply trade points.

It's an American system that frankly has failed. It is a system that is in place because there's no enforcement, there are no standards. It's equivalent to saying that once you've used up your 15 demerit points for bad driving, all you do is buy five or 10 points from a friend of yours who is a good driver and then you keep driving recklessly, speeding, going through stoplights, through stop signs. It is the exact same thing this minister is proposing. It is totally outrageous. It is bizarre.

I am not sure where Mr Sterling's coming off on this. He is now going to have 60 days to react. I ask the Premier, I ask the Minister to reconsider this stupid, outrageous idea. You don't trade emission points; you go after polluters. You don't simply allow them to buy --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements. Member for Hamilton Centre.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday, the government's Health Services Restructuring Commission landed in the community of Hamilton-Wentworth and sent a shiver down the collective spine of everyone in the community as we face the possibility of losing one or two of our acute care hospitals.

With regard to this, I'd like to make three points today:

First, there's absolutely no need for this commission to roll into Hamilton and shut down a hospital. We have a local plan, developed locally with the input of everyone in the medical community and in the social services community, that allows us to keep our acute care hospitals as well as meet the fiscal demands and pressures this government has forced upon them.

Second, the government continues to say: "It's the commission that's shutting down these hospitals, not us. It's the commission." The people in Hamilton-Wentworth know clearly this commission was created under Bill 26, the omnibus bill. That's the government's bill. They appointed these commissioners, they're accountable and the four local Tories in Hamilton-Wentworth, the four Tory MPPs, are accountable for the decisions of this commission just as much as that health minister and we're going to hold them accountable.

Third, I want to read into the record a quote from an interview with the Hamilton Spectator editorial board from Mark Rochon who is the executive director of the Health Services Restructuring Commission: "Hospital restructuring without reinvestment will be in significant difficulty. Without reinvestment you don't have restructuring -- you've just flattened the system."

MINE RESCUE COMPETITION

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Last Saturday I had the privilege of attending the annual provincial mine rescue competition held this time in Windsor, Ontario, and of hosting the mine rescue competition awards banquet on behalf of the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer.

This was a two-day event where 26 mine rescue teams and 28 equipment technicians made up from Ontario's 1,000 mine rescue volunteers participated. The competition involved real-life scenarios including smoke-filled rooms, simulated injuries and an eight-foot wall of fire.

The day was intense and showed just how vital the training and emergency preparedness are in dealing with mine disasters. We all owe a debt of gratitude to these miners who volunteer and put their own lives on the line to save mine workers and to ensure the continued safe operation of mines in Ontario.

Today I would like to recognize the special efforts of the provincial champions from Onaping Falconbridge Inc -- Fraser Strathcona. Team members were the affable team captain Val Buttazzoni, Brad Bastien, Norman Menaurd, Michel Aubin, Jim Lundrigan, Robert Jackson, Gaston Brosseau and Charlie Burton.

Once again, congratulations to all of those brave mine rescue personnel who participated in last weekend's competition and to all the other mine rescue volunteers in Ontario. I extend to you the respect and gratitude of all Ontarians for the contribution you have made to workplace safety. Keep up the good work.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): This morning I met with people with disabilities and their organizations to share with them our plans to create a new income support program for people with disabilities. The Ontario disability support program will move people with disabilities off the welfare system and provide them with greater opportunities for independence.

Ontario presently provides the highest level of disability support among Canadian provinces. People who are eligible would have their benefits protected under the new program.

In the Common Sense Revolution we said we would create a new and separate income support program for people with disabilities. We heard from people with disabilities that the current system doesn't meet their needs. We've listened to their concerns and we intend to implement their suggestions.

If the legislation is passed, the Ontario disability support program will provide an income support program designed to meet the unique needs of people with disabilities. It will ensure that benefits will be protected if a job attempt fails. It will remove the requirements for people to endure unnecessary eligibility testing every one or two years. It will allow people with disabilities to keep more of their liquid assets and compensation awards and provide a higher limit on life insurance policies. It will also enable people to benefit more from gifts and inheritances so that families can provide a more secure future for their sons and daughters.

During our consultations with this community it was made very clear that many people with disabilities can and do want to work. They also told us they don't like labels. They want eligibility criteria that do not limit their opportunities by labelling them as permanently unemployable. The government intends to support them to secure jobs and to reach their potential.

The proposed system is designed with a number of features that would help people with disabilities take advantage of employment opportunities. For example, it would allow them to accept work without worrying about not having their benefits reinstated quickly if they cannot continue with the job.

The proposed program responds to the concerns of people with disabilities and represents significant improvements to income and employment supports. With the Ontario disability support program, our government is taking a leadership role in meeting the needs of people with disabilities.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I too was at this supposed announcement at Goodwill Industries this morning. It was certainly apparent that a number of people in the community of those with disabilities are looking forward to legislation.

When we asked yesterday in the House what was coming today, we were told, "There's no legislation coming," but what we had was more fanfare. We had a great big fanfare of an announcement to tell us, "No legislation is coming." I guess that was the announcement.

Instead, what we've got is a change. We don't know what the change is. We have individuals with disabilities who are waiting and who asked you via the media this morning, "How are the criteria going to change?" Minister, you refused to answer the question. The media asked you today: "How will it change? Will there be fewer people on the system once your legislation is passed or will there be more?" Again you refused to answer the question. So we can't help but think that today's fanfare at Goodwill Industries was exactly that: a smoke-and-mirrors operation intended to lull us into believing you're doing something more for the disabled community.

You've reflected on the Common Sense Revolution. May I remind the minister that you said to the disabled community that they would not be cut, that aid to the disabled would not be cut. In your first year as government you cut aid to the disabled. You also said in the Common Sense Revolution, "No new user fees." Minister, every individual, almost without exception, who is disabled often is also on some form of medication. These individuals have been paying user fees since your government took office, and that is a promise that you broke in your own Common Sense Revolution.

You didn't want to highlight for the House today the fact that you are planning to privatize the delivery of these employment supports for individuals with disabilities. In fact, in papers you presented this morning you said, "The proposed employment support system will be delivered by local service coordinators who will be selected through a competitive process based on their ability," etc.

Why didn't you mention today that you are going to subject individuals with disabilities to, and put all those support mechanisms through, a privatization scheme, so that the insurance industry, which today likely the only industry that might be able to qualify and compete to offer these services -- I don't know how comfortable the disabled community would feel working with people who are out to make a buck, because that is the bottom line when you talk about privatization.

We have to come back to the definition of "disabled." The minister very much avoided that question today and it's the one we've been asking from the beginning: How is the definition going to change? She said in papers released today that the new definition will cover "substantial as well as severe." That begs the question, what about those who are partially disabled? What about those who are struggling and would be considered marginally employable given a level of employment support?

If those individuals who are not substantially disabled can't jump over the bar in order to get in your system, they won't have any means to access the employment supports. You can show that those people who are disabled enough to qualify for benefits are the sole group that will be able to access the employment supports you introduced today. Those people who aren't disabled enough will never get over the bar you are raising in your new definition, so they cannot access those employment supports.

Minister, you talked today about finding savings of some $34 million, and that with those moneys you've found, you're going to reinvest in this system. My colleagues on this side understand what reinvestment means when you say it: It's not to be believed. You have a terrible history of reinvestment so far. In fact, you are not doing it, so it is not to be believed that $34 million will be found from your system. In fact, you will spend that money in only one way.

You'll have fewer people on the system because your criteria will become so stringent that many individuals will never get over the bar you have raised to be classified as disabled and get into a program that would then be very worthwhile for these individuals.

Let us go back to the Common Sense Revolution. Mike Harris promised, "No new user fees." The community of disabled people has been paying user fees since your government took office. Minister, your Premier, Mike Harris, said, "No cuts to the disabled." Minister, in your first year of government you did cut aid to the disabled, so the minister has absolutely no credibility.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I believe ver