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

August 25, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L218 - Mon 25 Aug 1997 / Lun 25 Aoû 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

PAROLE SYSTEM

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

CHARITABLE GAMING

SERGE LECLAIR

PUBLIC HEALTH

FIRE IN HAMILTON

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT (LICENSING COMMITTEE), 1997

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GASOLINE PRICES

AMBULANCE SERVICES

SCHOOL BOARDS

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

PROPERTY TAXATION

FIRE IN HAMILTON

LABOUR LEGISLATION

WATER CLEANUP

PETITIONS

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GAMBLING

BEAR HUNTING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

BEAR HUNTING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

GAMBLING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): On many occasions I have risen to express my deep concerns about the closure of regional offices of family support and the crisis in the new Family Responsibility Office. Only a very small percentage of cases are solved quickly. Most require repeated phone calls which leave my constituency assistants on hold for 20 minutes or more waiting to speak to an agent. Since last year, my long-distance costs have more than doubled; FRO is the cause of that huge increase.

It takes many weeks to resolve problems. One of my faxes was not picked up for a month. The system is not working, Minister. It is not working for those who must pay, it is not working for the custodial parents and children are suffering. Families must resort to self-help groups to get your attention.

In Chatham a group called TNT, Takes No Time, has been set up to urge the government to take action. These are not government cheques that you are delaying. This is not welfare and it is not charity; it is court-ordered support payments. You've had more than a year to address this problem. When are you going to fix this crisis?

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission was created by the province 95 years ago, in 1902, to open up the vast area of northern Ontario. Since then the economic development of the area has been closely linked to the services provided by the ONTC.

The ONTC is facing unprecedented downsizing and budget cuts, for example, $10 million in the last budget, and the cuts are just as deep as any faced by municipalities and various other provincial agencies. Right now, the passenger train service that runs between Cochrane and Toronto is under scrutiny. What will be the outcome of this study? No one knows; certainly the officials of the commission do not know.

The population of northern Ontario is worried. What is the future of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission? They have already lost the quality of service of NorOntair. They now face the possibility of losing the passenger train services they have come to enjoy for so many years.

Their worries don't stop there though. More and more people are now raising concerns about the freight train services as well, particularly on the level of safety. Recently, two derailments in the Kapuskasing area occurred over a period of two weeks. Add these incidents to another derailment in the past year. People are raising questions. Within the context of the cuts and downsizing, they are demanding an explanation. Is there any relationship between the government's agenda and these derailments?

How do we explain the sudden high frequency of accidents? Are the cutbacks and downsizing affecting the proper maintenance of the lines so much that the public and workers' safety is at stake? People are concerned and they're worried.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I rise today to speak to an issue which is on the minds of a great many Canadians, not only in Ontario but across this great land.

Last year there was a resolution put forward in this House by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel with regard to

section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, commonly referred to as the faint hope clause. The resolution called upon the federal government to repeal this odious

section of the Criminal Code, introduced by the federal Liberal government in 1976, which allows murderers to apply for parole earlier than permitted by their original sentences. This

section gives those serving a life sentence a chance of an early parole and to have a hearing concerning early parole.

The rationale for this

section at the time was to justify continued abolition of capital punishment. A life sentence was supposed to mean a life sentence, not 15 years and then parole. The punishment must fit the crime. Rehabilitation is one factor but it is not a primary factor in a crime such as murder with a relatively low rate of repeat offenders. Retribution and general deterrence must be considered paramount.

The federal government to date has refused to repeal

section 745, and now we have the spectacle of Clifford Olson applying for early parole under

section 745. This is a disgrace.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): What do King Henry VIII and the Mike Harris government have in common? According to a judgement of the Ontario Court of Justice, they are both big bullies.

Justice Archie Campbell described as "breathtaking" a clause in the government's bill on school board amalgamation. This clause gives cabinet the right to amend its own act by regulation -- no debate, no vote in the Legislature, cabinet just sits down and makes its own laws.

Justice Campbell notes that this kind of clause is called the King Henry VIII clause by legal historians because it gives cabinet exactly the same kind of autocratic power that King Henry gave himself -- the power to make laws by proclamation.

Now, with the new rule changes that have been once again forced on this Legislature, the Harris-King Henry VIII government is even freer to drive through its agenda, with no right to be heard for those who will be affected by the changes. Even existing laws can be arbitrarily overruled by the Harris cabinet, which keeps putting itself above the law, just as it puts itself above the people.

Time and time again we have seen this government discard any interest in hearing the opinions, the views, the concerns of those who would be affected by its changes. Even today, with the Toronto hospitals in court challenging the unilateral decisions of the commission, they say the views of those people made no difference. One big difference is that King Henry VIII is dead. We can all hope that the Harris government soon will be.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This morning at 10 o'clock the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation held a press conference in the media studio to announce the government's plans with respect to charitable gaming casinos in the province and the allocation of the funds. I note with interest that the minister is not scheduled to make a statement here in the House and I think that's very unfortunate.

But let me say that it was a disgraceful performance. I think people were very disappointed. The minister absolutely guaranteed that the charities will be receiving up to $180 million of new revenues and she was able to talk about what percentage that was of the revenues coming in as a result of video slot machines and expanded gambling in local community neighbourhoods. When asked what the government's take was, however, the minister had no answer. We found that quite perplexing.

I say to the minister, perhaps some assistance with a little calculator might have been helpful. If you expect that the charities are going to receive $100 million from video slot machines and you say that is 10% of the revenues -- guess what? -- total revenues look to be about $1 billion, and $900 million going to the government.

It is a quick grab at money. I think what I find so offensive is that the minister spoke about a great deal of consultation about how to allocate the moneys, but the government refuses to consult with communities like mine in Beaches about the fact that we don't want a charity casino there in the first place.

SERGE LECLAIR

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I rise today to honour a constituent of mine, Serge Leclair, one of five recipients of the Award of Excellence presented by the Honourable Noble Villeneuve, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

This prestigious award, presented annually by the ministry, recognizes excellence in academic achievement, leadership abilities and community involvement. The award is presented to one student in each graduating class of a diploma program supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr Leclair is a hardworking and highly prominent student at Kemptville College. He enriched the life of every student on campus in his varied roles as activities chair for student council, master of ceremonies at the OPAC banquet in 1997, and a member of both the yearbook committee and the athletics committee.

His academic achievements are also worth noting. In just five semesters he earned not only a diploma in horticulture but also a certificate in powered equipment. At graduation he served at class valedictorian.

Mr Leclair is now using his knowledge and experience to excel in the private sector.

The four other students are Beverley Goodwin, of the independent study program at the University of Guelph; Nancy French, of the Ontario Agricultural College; Pierrette Séguin, of Alfred College; and Shannon Ward, of Ridgetown College.

I would like to thank the Honourable Noble Villeneuve, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, for taking the time to present this award. I would also like to congratulate Mr Leclair and all the other award winners on their fine achievements.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): In all the discussions about this government's downloading of responsibilities on to the municipalities, there may be one area that has not received the attention it should, and that's the area of public health programs.

This is an issue of great concern in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, and unless the Minister of Health manages to change the Premier's mind, all public health programs must be funded by our cash-strapped municipalities come January 1, 1998.

To make public health part of the downloading package is simply wrong, and I believe that you must surely feel the same way. As Dr David Williams, the medical officer of health for the Thunder Bay District Health Unit, put it to me: "A fragmented, decentralized public health system will not be capable of providing the people of Ontario with a timely, informed and coordinated response to outbreaks of disease."

While this downloading has potentially hazardous consequences in all areas of public health, I want to draw your attention to the vital need to maintain the genetic counselling program in particular. The families of patients affected by genetic diseases such as Huntington's, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and ALS need to be helped locally. Some of these patients in their later years cannot travel at all.

Minister, listen to the pleas of our area doctors and nurses as well as people such as Heather Labelle, the area representative for Huntington's disease, and make the decision to take public health off the downloading table and give all of us reassurance that the genetic counselling program will stay in place in the north.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise to advise the House that just a couple of hours ago Dr Matthew Bramley of Greenpeace held a news conference at the Howard Johnson Connaught in downtown Hamilton and announced the results of studies they had done on some of the soil from the Plastimet fire site. They said at the news conference that the results, which have been verified by independent laboratories, said they found 25,000 parts per trillion of toxic equivalent of dioxin at a time when the cleanup guideline for contaminated industrial land is 1,000 parts per trillion.

What we should appreciate, for those of us who are laypeople, is the fact that Dr Bramley found -- I'll read his words:

"Greenpeace has consistently stated there would be extensive dioxin contamination because of the large amount of the PVC plastic that burned, but I was shocked when I saw these figures. None of the past PVC fires documented by Greenpeace generated dioxin levels quite so high. I am concerned for firefighters and others who have been exposed to this material without adequate protection."

He goes on to say that this makes the Plastimet site probably the most toxic in Canada. Yet this government persists in stonewalling in terms of a public inquiry. After today's announcement, there can be no excuse for not having that public inquiry.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last Friday I had the pleasure of being a guest at the opening of the Assistive Devices Program Centre at the Hamilton office of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The program at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is designed to provide an assessment centre for visually impaired and blind individuals in order to make available various equipment and technologies to enhance the independence of their lives.

The technologies available to blind and visually impaired individuals are truly exciting. From the simplest computer enhancement providing large print to the scanners that read written text and articulate it in a human voice, the ADP program offers a valuable service to members of our community in Hamilton. What is more, Hamilton-area residents will no longer have to travel to facilities out of town in Kitchener and Toronto. The assistive devices program is right in their backyard.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the cooperative efforts of the community in Hamilton who raised $150,000 for the program, as well as the Ministry of Health, which contributed $200,000 to open the doors for a new program that already has a waiting list.

I know the CNIB appreciated the attendance of the Minister of Health, the Honourable Jim Wilson, at the opening of the program, and I would as well pass along my personal thanks to the minister for his assistance.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was just wondering, with the new rules in place, when we have visitors -- we have the Sam Tu Dang from England visiting us today -- is it appropriate to introduce them and welcome them to Canada? Would that be appropriate?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You mean in the gallery? No, that's inappropriate.

Mr Curling: We welcome them anyway.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT (LICENSING COMMITTEE), 1997

Mrs Ross moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr65,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

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

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, Wednesday, August 27, 1997, Tuesday, September 2, 1997, and Wednesday, September 3, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Johnson, Don Mills, moves -- dispense? No?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to get up on a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: There's no point of order, to the member for St Catharines. This is just a motion and it's moved by the government.

Mr Bradley: But the point of order I would like to make --

The Speaker: Okay, I'll hear your point of order if you like.

Mr Bradley: The point of order I have is that the new rules of the House, the new dictatorship, begin today, not last week. I understand the motion was filed last week, before the rules came into effect. If they were to be filed today, I'd fully understand that. I'd say: "Yes, that's the new rules. Too bad, but that's the way it is." But these were filed last week, and surely to be in effect, that motion should have been filed when the new rules were in effect, which was after midnight on Thursday night.

The Speaker: Although you're accurate, correct in the way you've listed the sequence of events, the fact is it matters not when a motion is filed; it only matters when a motion is called. They've called the motion today, and we now are under the jurisdiction of the new rules, so in fact they're not out of order. It's just that simple. Anybody can file any motion and ask the opposition party about filing an extra day for debate on opposition day. You can file it, but if it's attempted to be called or you're brought forward, it's out of order.

They filed this last week. It's true the House wasn't under those rules, but they called it today. We are under those rules and it's perfectly in order.

Pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, Wednesday, August 27, 1997, Tuesday, September 2, 1997, and Wednesday, September 3, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1405.

The Speaker: Order. All those in favour of the motion please rise and be recognized by the Clerk one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, David

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O_Toole, John

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49, the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I think the House leader should move even more expeditiously to get bills through this House. He's moving too slowly.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Who's your question to, member for Lawrence?

Mr Cordiano: It's to the House leader, the minister. Last week, without notice or warning, you betrayed municipal leaders who were willing to work with you to sort out the mess you created on Who Does What legislation. By introducing legislation late last Thursday, you broke all faith. You introduced it late in the day, with as little media coverage as possible and without any statement in this House. It's obvious that what you really intended to do was to avoid this House, the media, municipal officials and the people of this province. You're running away from everyone, Minister.

You simply aren't willing to guarantee that your downloading on to municipalities will be revenue-neutral, and so you're trying to hide that possibility.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Cordiano: How could you possibly introduce this legislation without at least first talking to municipalities and then --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. Minister.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): First of all, I would say that this legislation was introduced at the normal time in the Legislature, on a normal basis. There's no requirement for a minister's statement in terms of a bill. In some instances there are ministers' statements; in other cases there are no ministers' statements.

Finally, I would say that the province has been discussing this very matter with the municipalities for some considerable period of time. In fact back in June, I believe it was, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, many of the municipal leaders came forward with a recommendation in terms of the splitting of responsibilities and the splitting of funding between the municipalities and the province, and that is what was accepted by the province of Ontario and implemented through this bill, the services improvement bill.

Mr Cordiano: Here is what a few municipal representatives had to say about your bill and the way you introduced it. In fact, no one trusts you any more. Terry Mundell, the head of AMO, after you quietly introduced your bill, said: "What does that tell you about partnership? Trust, respect for our level of government is not coming through."

Or Markham Mayor Don Cousens, a former colleague, on how much trust he places on your guarantee that the downloading will be revenue-neutral: "I'd like to have something in legislation" to guarantee that.

Municipalities say your plans will increase taxes, as high as 75% in the Premier's own riding. You say they're all wrong. No one believes you any more. Even your own back bench is doubting your credibility.

I ask you again to withdraw this bill until you can guarantee to municipalities that it is in fact revenue-neutral and that people won't be facing huge property tax increases.

Hon David Johnson: I think the member opposite would agree with me when I say that obviously not all of the municipal leaders are wrong. For example, I'll give you the quote of one of those involved at the municipal level. The quote is: "Chiarelli vowed not to raise taxes. Chiarelli says the downloaded responsibilities can be absorbed with no tax increase."

Mayor Mel Lastman says: "I can come with a zero tax increase. There's no doubt in my mind that it can be done for the new city of Toronto."

Terry Mundell has said, "The reality of the situation is that the province told us about a year ago that the $667 million is being eliminated, but the rest can be absorbed." That's our view, that the municipalities will be able to absorb and not put taxes up. Indeed, there's a considerable amount of support for the disentanglement process that we have initiated.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious this government is not listening -- not listening to AMO representatives, Terry Mundell, Don Cousens, various other mayors across the province. It's obvious this government has something to hide when it comes to this piece of legislation. What's in it is the inability of the government to guarantee that any of the changes will be revenue-neutral to the municipalities. You've failed to confirm this. You have failed to reassure municipalities that it is in fact revenue-neutral.

In the end, what are municipalities left to do but throw up their hands and say, "We can't trust this government"? Time and again you've shown that the people of this province cannot look to you for trust in the way that you can bring forward a piece of legislation that deals with these additional costs. Some $670 million in additional costs will be dumped on to municipalities, and what do you say them? You say, "Trust us."

They have tried to trust you. The very people who were working with you, those same municipal representatives, are saying you have failed to consult with them. You introduced legislation without even talking to them. Minister, withdraw the bill.

The Speaker: Member for Lawrence, please take your seat. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: In fact there have been very extensive consultations. I would say that even at the present time, as we speak here today, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is speaking and dialoguing with the members of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Indeed a number of ministers will be attending the AMO conference this week. There is considerable dialoguing.

I reiterate once again that this government sat down with many of the municipal leaders, and the proposal that's coming forward that's encompassed in the Services Improvement Act comes out of those discussions with the municipal leaders. They have asked for this for years. The previous government attempted to deliver on the request for disentanglement. They failed. We have taken it one step further. We have taken it that step to success in conjunction with the municipal leaders. There will be no tax increase. There will be a better division of services. It will be a more efficient and effective service.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment. This morning I, along with my colleague David Christopherson, the member for Hamilton Centre, attended a press conference by Greenpeace at which they released the onsite soil testing from the Plastimet fire that was taken the day of and the day after the fire. This test was done by General Laboratories, an independent company that has done work for the federal and provincial ministries, a credible firm.

These tests on the site showed that the Plastimet fire site contained 25 times the maximum acceptable dioxin rate for an industrial site. The same tests showed that it exceeded the agricultural land maximum level by 250 times. These are absolutely shocking numbers. Greenpeace said this morning, "This site is now one of the most toxic sites in Canada."

The evidence is overwhelming. The health effects are there. Over 100 firefighters, over 100 hospital workers, 38% of the residents have been impacted. You are the only one left in this province who doesn't believe there's a problem. Will you now recommend to your cabinet an immediate public inquiry into the Plastimet fire?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I have not seen the Greenpeace results. However, as I understand it, they confirm what the Ministry of Environment has known for a long, long time -- I'm talking far before this government was in power -- that this is a very contaminated site. However, in spite of the fact that previous governments have had some opportunity to clean up this particular site, this government is doing that at this present time. We have --

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): What are you talking about?

Hon Mr Sterling: I'm talking about the three fires that were there when you were Solicitor General, Mr Christopherson, and you didn't do anything about it.

Mr Christopherson: There's a plastic fire that put firefighters out of --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mr Sterling: We took dioxin samples off the site in the community and those results were normal, and that is what we were trying to protect in terms of the some 3,000 samples we took after and during the fire. We are onsite. We are attempting to have this site cleaned up like it's never been cleaned up before.

Mr Agostino: I am amazed at the smugness, the arrogance and the lack of concern this minister continues to show for the people of Hamilton and for the people who have been involved in that fire.

You and your ministry have the results of the onsite soil testing. We confirmed Friday afternoon that your ministry has the results but does not plan to release them later in the week. You have seen those numbers. You have seen the Greenpeace numbers. What are you trying to hide? What are you trying to cover up? Frankly, why are you more concerned with regard to the public relations and covering your butt and your ministry's butt rather than be concerned about the impact of this fire?

We have two choices here: Either the Greenpeace numbers are accurate, as we believe they are, or you today have to release your numbers that your ministry has that were confirmed Friday afternoon, that show the onsite soil testing shows the levels to exceed the standards by far.

Minister, will you today in the question period release the results that your ministry confirmed on Friday you have?

Hon Mr Sterling: We are not afraid to release any of the results we have. Those are available under the freedom of information act. We'd be pleased to do that. I know there's concern in the Hamilton community with regard to this fire and the results of this fire. That's why we have taken a substantial public information program. We have sent officials down there when they've been asked to go down. We have a public information trailer. We have a citizens' committee. We've provided the community with $40,000 to confirm any of our results.

We are a completely open book on this and we will continue to be a completely open book, because we're concerned about the health of these people. We don't want to make this a political debate; we want to make it an information debate. We have in fact provided all the information to the community and to the municipal politicians as well.

Mr Agostino: It's unbelievable that the minister has not been able to tell us today that he will release those numbers. What are you hiding? You have the numbers. Why are you afraid to release that information to the people of Hamilton?

The Premier agreed there should be a public inquiry. You've said you were not afraid of a public inquiry. The Minister of Health on Friday said, "The government would have to support an inquiry if health and other authorities add their voice." City council has asked for a public inquiry. I spoke to the regional chairman last night. He has said that he supports the call for a public inquiry and he will ask regional council to do so.

I cannot believe you are still continuing to hide behind some screen and lack of accountability you have when the reality is that your mishandling, your cuts, your incompetence in responding to this fire have led to the danger we have on that particular site today.

If you're not afraid, if you have nothing to hide, release those numbers, recommend to your cabinet that there be a public inquiry. Failure to do that, Minister, will clearly show that you are more concerned about covering your butt and your ministry's butt than taking care of the problem in Hamilton. Will you call today to your cabinet for a public inquiry --

The Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon Mr Sterling: As I said before, any numbers I have, the member is welcome to them. With all 3,000 tests we've taken, the public is entitled to see the results of each and every one of those tests. We have no fear about anyone seeing what those tests were and how they were provided.

In fact, I want to just read from acting mayor Dave Wilson's letter to me: "As you know, staff of your ministry were at the scene of the fire within an hour and have continued to be onsite to this day. With their valuable input and excellent advice they were able to give us the information we needed to make critical decisions in a timely manner. Had we not had their assistance, we would have been faced with a radically different situation."

We have continued since this fire started. We're still on the site. We're still taking tests. We're still providing information. We will release any results we have, not just soil tests from last week. We will release all the results.

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

Mr Christopherson: Is my microphone on? There we go. That's got it. I want to make sure he hears me, because so far everything he's done indicates he's not listening. My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, I want to join with my colleague Liberal MPP Dominic Agostino from Hamilton East and say to you, if you want a non-partisan approach, you've got it from over here. We're not playing any kind of party politics here when we call for a public inquiry. All of city council unanimously passed it, which includes, as you know, well-known Tories.

Recently, the Minister of Health, your colleague who sits two seats beside you, said that if the medical officer of health asked for a public inquiry he would agree with one.

Minister, you know that as elected people we are the ones who are accountable. I want to ask you, if regional council, which is the political body that the medical officer of health answers to locally, passes a resolution calling for a public inquiry, will you join with your colleague the Minister of Health and recommend to the cabinet that there be a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton?

Hon Mr Sterling: Because of my concern for the people of Hamilton, I of course would consider any request seriously. If that is done, I will consider it seriously at that point in time.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, it's getting a little better but we've still got a long way to go here before we hear you mouth the words, "Yes, there will be a public inquiry." Understand something, Minister: Nothing less is acceptable to the people in our community of Hamilton -- nothing less than a public inquiry.

So far, as I've mentioned, we've got the unanimous support of city council, we've got firefighters who are facing serious health problems as a result of this, we've got the OPSEU workers, who are your ministry representatives on the front line, saying, "Yes, there needs to be a public inquiry." We've got a number of environmental groups, including Greenpeace. We've got the Toronto board of health twice now, one just on Friday. The Spectator editorial board, not known to be a real left-wing group, has also called for a public inquiry.

The Public Inquiries Act says there only needs to be public concern for a public inquiry to be called. I'd like you to lay out right now, if you won't call one today, what exactly is your threshold for calling a public inquiry. What are the details?

Hon Mr Sterling: I just want to indicate to the member my concern about the health of the firefighters. We have in the past provided the fire chief with all of the information he has required during the fire and after the fire. We've provided that same information to the medical officer of health so that she could provide information to them about the health effects of the results of the fire, and we will continue to do that.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, I don't know if you fully appreciate how your answers sound. You're dodging the issue. You're abdicating your responsibility. We need leadership from you on this. You're the point person for this government in terms of this disaster that fell upon our community. You have that responsibility. You also have the ability to hold a public inquiry.

You keep standing up and saying you care and you're providing information. That's all that the people in our community are asking for; not for you to fall on your sword but for you to give them a transparent process that allows all the facts on the table. There's so much discrepancy here in terms of information our people have had, all the way from, "Be happy, don't worry," to, "Don't let your kids go out in the backyard in the middle of summer." That's the kind of discrepancy and you know what happened at the last public meeting.

Minister, you owe it to the platform you were elected on and you owe it to the people of Hamilton to say that you really care and show that you care and call for that public inquiry.

Hon Mr Sterling: I've said before and I'll say it again: We have provided all of the information. We're an open book. We're willing to provide any additional information which people would like to try to deal with this situation. I would only say to the former minister, he ought to know, and the member for Hamilton East ought to know that it's not in the mandate of the Ministry of Environment to call an inquiry.

Mr Christopherson: You're stonewalling. What are you hiding, Norm?

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I warn you. You must come to order. Member for Durham East, if you could take your seat, that would be helpful too. Minister.

Hon Mr Sterling: Let me make this clear. If in fact the member or the council or some citizens have some sound reasons, some sound evidence of the need for an inquiry, I would be pleased to pass those along to the Attorney General, who is responsible for calling public inquiries.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the government House leader and acting Premier for the day. Minister, last Thursday you dropped your download bill on this Legislature late in the afternoon. You gave no notice to municipal leaders, no notice to the public, no notice to any members here, no notice to the press. Can you tell us why your government feels it has to be so secretive? What is it that you have to hide? Why do you try to so hard to shut the public out of the democratic process and keep them in the dark? Can you tell us that?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I'm very happy to say that this government has pursued the democratic process in great detail. In fact the Minister of Municipal Affairs is speaking today with AMO. The Premier will be speaking with the association of municipalities later this week. A number of ministers will be present this week at the association of municipalities annual convention.

Over the course of this year there have been extensive negotiations and meetings between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the municipalities. Other ministers have met; indeed, the substance of this particular bill is one that resulted from those meetings and from the association itself coming forward with suggestions that the province accepted and implemented.

This is much the same process, except with more consultation, that the previous government went through. The previous government tried to address some of these same problems and failed. Our process, of this government, has resulted in a successful conclusion.

Mr Hampton: Let me suggest to the government House leader why his government was trying to be so secretive about this and why they introduced an omnibus piece of legislation at the end of a legislative week with no notice to anyone. The reason you're being so secretive is because this is a tax grab. You are going to grab municipal property taxes to pay for ambulance services, public health services, policing services, fire services, seniors' apartments and non-profit housing, social assistance and much more.

This is a tax grab by your government of municipal tax dollars. You're going after municipal property taxpayers. This bill is all about municipalities pay and you have all the say; that's what it's about. Minister, let me ask you this: Since it's a tax grab and your government promised not to raise taxes, will you withdraw this bill until you come clean and share with municipalities the full amount you're going to download on them?

Hon David Johnson: I guess the leader of the third party feels an authority on tax increases since his government increased taxes 32 times during its jurisdiction. The present government is not about tax increases. This government is about tax reduction. We have reduced the provincial personal income tax. The workers' compensation premiums will be reduced. The health payments will be reduced.

According to some of the main candidates in the upcoming municipal election, such as Mel Lastman -- and I presume his campaign committee and chair -- and Bob Chiarelli, people like that are saying, "Taxes will not go up." We firmly believe that because this is not a tax grab, this is not a download; this is simply a division of funding that your government failed to implement but this government, working with municipal leaders, has been able to accomplish.

Mr Hampton: I understand when the government House leader is trying to spin a story, but this even goes beyond anything you've tried before.

Yes, governments from time to time have to raise taxes, but at least some other governments in the past were honest about it. They didn't try to hide a $500 tuition fee increase and say, "It's not a tax grab." No other government hit seniors with a $200- to $300-a year prescription medicine user fee and tried to say, "It's not a tax grab." No other government shoved off on municipalities a whole long list of new user fees and then didn't say, "It's a tax grab."

Your government, if you add up all the user fees, all the new tuition fees, all the new fees you've assessed low-income seniors and people across this province, has had more tax increases in the last two years than probably any government in the last 10. But I come back to the question: Will you withdraw this bill until --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, leader of the third party. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: No, this bill will not be withdrawn. This bill results from the many municipal leaders getting together and recommending how this division of responsibilities and funding should proceed. The government has accepted their advice and that is encapsulated in this particular bill.

This government has had to make government more efficient and more effective. That's what we promised to do. We were faced, because of the NDP government in the 1990s, with a debt of some $100 billion, with deficits of $11 billion. We have reduced expenditures throughout Ontario, but at the same time we have put taxes down. I fully believe that with this better division of services, provision of services, funding of services, municipal taxes will go down because municipalities will be able to be more effective and more efficient.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Last Thursday I was asking questions of the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism about the outrageous price of gasoline in this province for motorists, both those who are visiting and those who reside in this province. His response was: "It is not the purpose of this government to interfere in corporate actions. We live in a free enterprise environment." He also said: "We on this side of the House believe in the free enterprise system. We don't intend to dictate to companies what they should and should not do, provided they act with reason."

Do you believe that the big oil companies in this province that are gouging the consumers are acting within reason? Is it your intention to protect the consumers of this province against these outrageous gas prices or are you prepared to continue to apologize for the oil barons of this province?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to turn this question over to my colleague Minister Tsubouchi.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Perhaps we can indicate, once again, the discussion we had on Thursday where I indicated I've already met with the independent gas dealers --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, if we could revisit last Thursday when the member for St Catharines asked us again, I indicated that I already met with the independent gas dealers to discuss the issue.

Secondly, I indicated as well that this will be on the agenda for the interprovincial ministers' conference coming up this September in Saskatchewan. Clearly every minister of the crown of all the various provinces has a concern with this.

Thirdly, I've also taken the time to write to the Honourable John Manley to indicate that they should exercise their powers under the Competition Act, for them to take some steps, because clearly it's a federal jurisdiction.

Fourthly, I've also written to the industry, the gas refiners, to ask them to ensure that the consumers of Ontario are well served.

Mr Bradley: The answer is the minister is doing nothing, as usual, except passing the buck to somebody else.

You have a chance to stand up for the consumers of this province, the motorists of this province, or to get into bed with the corporate barons, the oil barons who are charging outrageous prices for gasoline in this province. I'm asking you to take the side of consumers, to take positive action. Here's something within your jurisdiction and there's support all around this House for it.

Are you prepared to introduce a bill preventing predatory pricing, that is, major oil companies from selling for less to their own dealers than they do to independents and therefore wiping the independents out? Are you prepared to introduce in this province, with the support of all three parties, and it will get by in one afternoon, a bill prohibiting predatory pricing on the part of the major oil barons of this country?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We are clearly concerned with this and we've taken more action than the member's government did when they were in power.

Mr Speaker, if I could beg your indulgence and take a very short trip down memory lane, I'll indicate to the member that when his own Premier, David Peterson, was confronted with this issue he indicated, "The member is very well aware that the federal government controls this issue, not us." He went on to say on April 29, and this is a good one: "I know it's not easy to impress upon socialists how the marketplace works. I do not want to give them an Economics 201 primer in this situation." Obviously Mr Bradley missed the primer because he's still asking the same questions.

Lastly, I'll indicate that Mr Peterson, who was the Premier at that point in time, on January 24, 1986, indicated that they will tell him clearly that he is asking the question in the wrong House. Obviously he didn't pay attention to his own Premier when they were in power.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): In the absence of the Minister of Health, I will ask my question of the Chair of Management Board and the former Minister of Health. The legislation your government introduced last Thursday requires municipalities to take over funding of all land ambulance services by January 1, 1998, and it requires that municipalities take over the delivery of ambulance service by January 1, 2000, neatly coinciding --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You guys are as large as life when it comes to take credit and you won't do anything.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm warning the member for St Catharines to come to order. I won't warn him again.

Can I just get who your question is to again? I'm sorry, member for London Centre.

Mrs Boyd: Certainly. I'm starting from the beginning, am I, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Okay, go ahead.

Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, it's to the Chair of Management Board and the former health minister because the Minister of Health is absent again today.

Minister, the legislation your government introduced last Thursday requires municipalities to take over full funding of land ambulance services by January 1, 1998, and requires that municipalities take over the delivery of ambulance services by January 1, 2000, a date neatly coinciding with most of the hospital closures that have been announced so far.

As services are rationalized, as there are fewer hospitals with greater levels of specialization, you're expecting municipalities to provide for the transportation of patients across greater distances and with more frequent transfers, and nowhere in this legislation are the criteria for service elaborated. It leaves many questions about what the response times will be, who will staff ambulances, what their training will be and what equipment is required.

Minister, why is there no assurance in this legislation that as the health care system becomes more reliant on the delivery of ambulance services, the people of Ontario can expect higher --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for London Centre. Minister?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): First of all, not being the Minister of Health at this present time I may not have all the specific information to respond to the question. But I will say that ambulance services are part of the transfer of responsibilities and funding between the province and the municipalities. It is a revenue-neutral situation. Municipalities I've always found to be very sincere and concerned about health issues, through the public health departments, for example. I'm very confident that the municipalities will look at what's required and do the right thing.

Here in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, the Metro ambulance services have shared in the funding 50-50 over the past number of years and delivered a top-flight ambulance service here. I'm confident that municipalities across Ontario, with the advice of the provincial government, will carry on in an excellent fashion the ambulance services.

Mrs Boyd: At a time when you're saying you want to integrate health services, where you want uniform quality of health services, what your legislation has done is create more confusion, more complication between municipal and provincial responsibilities for ambulance service.

According to the changes in the Ambulance Act, municipalities will have to fund most of it, but the province will control some of it, and all jurisdictions are going to have to work out a morass of cross-boundary payments and chargebacks. In the end, the public will have no idea who is responsible for what. What is now a system of 172 operators could conceivably be a system with more than 800 operators. This is not straightening out who does what; it represents the exact opposite to what the Crombie panel recommended.

Minister, you've refused to give service criteria. You're creating greater confusion. Will you provide today the total cost projections for ambulance services, including the impact of hospital restructuring, to January 1, 2000?

Hon David Johnson: It's somewhat interesting that the previous government went through an exercise looking at the same problem, that for more accountability to ensure efficiency, the province should discuss with municipalities who should deliver what service and who should pay for what service. We have finally taken that to a successful conclusion, and part of that whole picture includes land ambulances.

I will say that notwithstanding that municipalities will have the responsibility, the ministry will continue to set standards and monitor those standards and enforce standards to ensure that the people of Ontario have an excellent service delivery and that the vehicles, equipment and qualifications of the service providers are up to proper standards.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, school board amalgamation is occurring across Ontario as we speak. The school boards are restructuring and changing under Bill 104. Our government has always stated that cost savings can and should be found outside the classroom. The purpose of the bill is to decrease costs while maintaining quality classroom education. What is the status of this transformation of school boards?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'd like to thank the member for Peterborough for the question. He's quite correct on the premise of Bill 104, which is to move from 1,700 to 900 politicians in our education system; to reduce the cost of the bureaucracy and the administration of this system; and to focus on the individual student and the individual teacher in the classroom, to make sure all of our efforts are focused on those people in that critical relationship.

Bill 104 is an important building block as we build the future of education in the province step by step by step. It's our goal, with Bill 104 and with our other education initiatives, to lift our students from the clutches of mediocrity where they have found themselves and to fulfil our goal and our commitment, which is to have student performance in Ontario be the best in Canada, not in the middle of the pack.

I can tell you that things are going quite well in this transformation. We are managing the change well. Local education improvement committees are in place across Ontario, working on putting together this new, better education system.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister. It sounds like it's working well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Mr Stewart: If it wasn't working well, I wouldn't get this kind of response.

The minister often speaks of reducing bureaucracy and indeed duplication. Would the minister elaborate and provide this House with the information on how school board district 14, which is in my riding, is achieving those necessary cost savings while ensuring quality education, and are the objects of our government being met in this particular case?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd confirm what the member for Peterborough has said: It is going quite well. In fact, although some people from the opposition may find it hard to believe, my mother recently told me that it was going well, and I trust what she has to say.

In all seriousness, we are --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Lest we digress, which happens from time to time in this chamber, let me say that we are in the very early stages of this transformation. There's lots of work to do but there are willing hands doing that work right across the province.

The estimates by experts were that we would be able to save $150 million by reducing the bureaucracy in the administration of education, and I'm pleased to say that in the member's riding, district school board 14 recently determined that they can eliminate three senior administrative positions for an annual saving of $400,000 in that board alone from that move alone. I think that's a positive indicator that we can reduce administration.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, two months ago you announced that the Harris government would be divesting itself of 50% of the provincial highway network in eastern Ontario. As part of that divestment, you plan to turn Highways 37 and 41 over to the respective counties of Hastings, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington and Renfrew. In the intervening weeks, chambers of commerce, travel associations and local municipalities have in one voice said it's a bad idea.

Having had some time over the summer to think about your plan, are you now prepared, as minister of highways for Ontario, to reconsider that position and to take back into the provincial highway system Highways 41 and 37?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for the question. Obviously it is a concern for many municipalities around the province. In some ways, they might feel overwhelmed with what is happening. But I believe we in the Harris government are doing what is necessary to be done, that is, taking a look at provincial highway infrastructure that truly serves a provincial purpose, and certainly highways that no longer serve that purpose should be dealt with by the municipalities.

We are doing that in such a way that municipalities are going to get adequate compensation, and if there isn't compensation attached to it, we will make sure that the standards of the transfer of those highways are going to be in the condition that they should be. We are doing things that I believe are right.

Mr Conway: Everyone who is on the other side of this says it's a bad idea. Highway 41, running from Lake Ontario at Napanee 200 kilometres northward to Pembroke at the Ottawa River, runs through a sparsely populated area that is almost entirely owned by the provincial government. No one in Renfrew, Lennox and Addington and Frontenac can conceive of what local interest is served by Highway 41.

You're going to meet tomorrow with the wardens of Renfrew, Lennox and Addington, Hastings and Frontenac counties who have got a counterproposal that would see you take back 41 and 37 into the provincial system for some other highways that they're prepared to take into their local and regional system. Are you prepared to consider that seriously and respond, not just to municipal leaders but to travel associations, chambers of commerce and a lot of sensible people who think your plan, particularly for the divestment of Highways 41 and 37, is unfair and insupportable?

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to say to the honourable member that obviously highways are of great importance to Ontario, not only from a commercial aspect but also from a tourism aspect. I want to say to the member that, yes, I am meeting with the wardens and municipal leaders tomorrow and I am going to be going into this thing with a very open mind. I'm certainly going to listen to what they have to say. If there are fundamental opportunities within that compromise that we could both take advantage of the situation, obviously I will take that into consideration.

I want to again reassure the members that the transfers that have taken place have been done in a fair and consistent manner. Money has been attached to the transfers. Again, I want to say that whatever infrastructure needs to be addressed, at least we in the Harris government are making that effort. I don't want to give a shot to the two parties on the other side, but certainly in your term of government the same attention was not given by your respective governments.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. A small municipality in my constituency, the township of Plummer Additional, which is concerned about the downloading to municipalities, called the minister's office to request a meeting during the AMO conference this week. The response they received back from the minister's office was quite offensive.

The information they were given was that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines would meet with the executive of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities and the mayors of the six major northern centres but that he did not have time to meet with small municipalities. The township of Plummer Additional was advised that their concerns should be forwarded to the executive of FONOM. I understand that the minister suggested they should meet with his parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton North.

Why is the Minister of Northern Development and Mines limiting his meetings during the AMO conference only to large municipalities and to the executive of FONOM?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I have no idea. I'll check out why that was told to the municipality. I met with FONOM and NOMA this morning, along with the six mayors of northern Ontario. As soon as I'm out of here in a few minutes, I'll go back down to AMO and meet with delegations until about 9 o'clock tonight from small municipalities right across northern Ontario. I'll check out why they were told that.

Mr Wildman: Since receiving this information, the reeve of the township of Plummer Additional has sent a memo to all the municipalities in Algoma district indicating the substance of his conversation with the minister's staff. The township of Plummer Additional has the same kinds of tax burdens, if not worse, as the large municipalities in northern Ontario as a result of the downloading. The township has done an analysis of the downloading and estimates that in 1998 there will be a $2,042 property tax increase to every household in the township.

Minister, how can you accept this kind of increase to the ratepayers of small municipalities in northern Ontario like the township of Plummer Additional? Can you tell them today that you will indeed change your

schedule and meet with the reeve as he's attending AMO and discuss these figures and then come back to your government and say that this download has to be rethought?

Hon Mr Hodgson: First of all, you didn't listen to the answer. I told you I am meeting with small municipalities in northern Ontario all day at AMO. Throughout the year I meet with municipal representatives as well. We've given FONOM and NOMA dollars to consult with all the municipal politicians and councils across northern Ontario and they've done a phenomenal job.

We were presented this morning with a report from FONOM and NOMA that they got input from all the small municipalities. You know full well that it's too premature to translate any of these rough calculations to household increases. We had a very positive meeting this morning with six mayors and FONOM and NOMA. FONOM and NOMA represent small municipalities.

This afternoon I expect to have more meetings with small municipalities, and they know this is a process where we've got some steps to take. We've got to work together to make sure there is no tax increase, to make sure that not only is the provincial government making efficiencies and making services better but the municipalities are given the tools to make services better without raising their taxes.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Solicitor General. As you've heard today and as I've expressed to you on numerous occasions, people in Hamilton are concerned about the aftermath of the Plastimet fire. They're concerned about the long-term effects and they're concerned about what can be done to ensure that such an occurrence doesn't happen again.

It's my understanding that your ministry is setting up a working group to respond to public concerns. Can you tell this House and members of my community, who are very concerned, who will be involved in this working group and what will they be doing?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I received the fire marshal's report on the incident last Wednesday and I want to commend the fire marshal and his staff for an excellent, timely and thorough work. The report contains 12 recommendations that will reduce the possibility of similar occurrences in the future. I'm told that the recommendations have already been endorsed by the Recycling Council of Ontario. The working group led by the office of the fire marshal with representatives from the ministries of environment and energy, health, labour and municipal affairs and housing, is being set up to translate these recommendations into action.

I'm quite satisfied that the report provides a game plan to address the issue. We're moving ahead and taking speedy action to ensure prevention and improve public safety.

Mrs Ross: I thank the Solicitor General for his response. This issue is a very serious concern. But the people in the community want to know when this group will be up and running, when they will take action and what their terms of reference will be.

Hon Mr Runciman: I appreciate the member's concern and interest in this subject. The government has taken this situation very seriously and we're making good on our commitment to take swift and effective action.

I understand a steering committee will be formed this week. The steering committee will set out the precise expectations in terms of time lines and objectives for the working group and this information will be made public. It's worth noting that there is other work ongoing with respect to related fire safety concerns. Updates to the fire code are expected to be made this fall. Fire safety and prevention have been and will continue to be priorities for this government.

The key to long-term public health and safety is prevention, and I'm confident that the working group will focus their efforts appropriately.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : My question is to the minister responsible for francophone affairs. Monsieur le Ministre, comme vous le savez, la Commission de restructuration des soins de santé a rendu public le sort de l'hôpital Montfort, et son rôle a été considérablement affaibli. Plusieurs personnes semblent dire que Montfort va devenir une coquille vide. C'est inacceptable.

Pouvez-vous me dire, Monsieur le Ministre, quel sera votre rôle dans tout ça ? Quel sera le rôle de l'Office des Affaires francophones ? Quelle action allez-vous prendre ? Et ma dernière question : est-ce que le ministère de la Santé va présenter un nouveau plan de mise en oeuvre ?

L'hon Noble A. Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales, ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Il me fait plaisir d'expliquer tout simplement à mon collègue d'Ottawa-Est que l'hôpital Montfort demeure comme toujours. La chose est qu'il y a eu certains changements recommandés par la Commission de restructuration.

M. Grandmaître : Votre réponse est inacceptable. Depuis le début vous vous cachez derrière cette commission parce que vous pensez que ces gens-là vont prendre la bonne décision ; vous allez simplement appuyer et votre attente dit que c'est satisfaisant.

À

titre de ministre des Affaires francophones, vous avez un rôle d'ambassadeur pour représenter la communauté francophone. Cessez vos simagrées. Qu'est-ce que vous allez faire et quand allez-vous le faire, Monsieur le Ministre ?

L'hon M. Villeneuve : Je veux tout simplement réitérer que la responsabilité du ministre des Affaires francophones est d'assurer que les services et que la formation des médecins francophones se continuent.

Vous savez, c'est intéressant que le premier ministre, l'honorable Jean Chrétien, se dit très d'accord avec la décision. Mon collègue et votre collègue au niveau fédéral, l'honorable Don Boudria, nous dit la même chose. Il voit le rôle de l'hôpital Montfort se continuer. Alors moi, je suis d'accord avec mes collègues d'Ottawa.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I have a question of the Solicitor General. We know that Bill 136 has nothing to do with restructuring and everything to do with dismantling the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers. Quite frankly, the inclusion of police officers in Bill 136 demonstrates that as clearly as anything.

Specifically, what have you done to protect the collective bargaining rights of police officers, municipal and provincial, across this province in the context of Bill 136?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'll refer this to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would simply indicate to the member for Welland-Thorold that we have started to talk to the police, and I have indicated that we are quite prepared to respond to their concerns and make what changes would be necessary to accommodate those concerns.

Mr Kormos: It's unfortunate that the Solicitor General declines to take the opportunity to explain what he has done to protect the interests and rights of, in this case, police officers who are directly within his bailiwick. Not only am I disappointed, but I suspect that thousands of police officers across the province now have seen the true colours of this Solicitor General, that he cares not for the welfare of police and policing and quite frankly is prepared to deliver them up to the Minister of Labour just as public sector workers across the board -- provincial, municipal and regional -- are being delivered up and sacrificed in the context of Bill 136.

How can the government justify the inclusion of, let's say, police officers or firefighters in 136 if indeed they insist that the purpose of 136 is about restructuring rather than a direct attack on the bargaining rights of public sector workers?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would like to also share with you the fact that the Solicitor General and I have certainly been in communication, and all of the concerns that were brought forward to his attention he has shared with me. I would simply reiterate what I said in response to my first question.

That is that as we look at the entire issue of restructuring and we put it into the appropriate context, we need to recognize that as we do have amalgamations, as we do have mergers of municipalities and hospitals and school boards, it is going to be absolutely necessary that there be the appropriate processes in place to deal with this restructuring to ensure that the needs of all employees, whether unionized or not, are appropriately addressed.

At the same time, we're taking a look at the arbitration system. As you probably know --

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

Hon Mrs Witmer: -- there has been an outstanding request to take a look at the arbitration system and somehow ensure that arbitrated settlements are dealt with in a more --

The Speaker: Thank you very much. New question.

WATER CLEANUP

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, you are the right person with the right skills for a tough job, and I am confident that you will make the right decisions. I understand that after much deliberation, you announced last week, along with local Thunder Bay industry and Environment Canada, a major cleanup project of toxic waste in Thunder Bay harbour. Can you tell the House today more about this cleanup and its impact on the province?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The ministry has been working for over 10 years on various remedial action plans across the Great Lakes. There are some 17 of them in existence. We have gone from the planning stage into the action stage, and last week we announced, along with the federal government and Abitibi, a $9.3-million cleanup in the Thunder Bay harbour of former toxic contamination done by Northern Wood Preservers. This cleanup will remove and treat the toxic sediments and thus improve the local water quality at Thunder Bay harbour.

We have spent in the past some $287 million on RAP-related activities. This project is going to have new innovative technologies and provide 200 jobs in the local area. I think it's a wonderful example of this province's commitment to clean up the Great Lakes.

PETITIONS

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Even though the Minister of Northern Development and Mines met with FONOM and NOMA this morning, they still believe this is an important petition.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to hear the petition.

Mr Bartolucci: " To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the provincial government has discontinued the northern support grant which has traditionally compensated the north for assessment deficiency and increased service costs; and

"Whereas the north is confronted with unique costs, severe weather conditions, higher prices, difficult terrain, higher levels of unemployment and a lower per capita income; and

"Whereas the provincial government has indicated its intention to eliminate all municipal unconditional grants, including the conditional road subsidy; and

"Whereas there has been no indication that the Ontario mining tax, which was implemented to fund northern support grants, will be eliminated or reduced;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fully support and endorse the position taken by the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities in its paper entitled Fairness and Equity for Our North, and that the province be requested to enact a new act to establish and provide, on a permanent basis, northern Ontario investments for northern municipalities to provide funds to maintain the basic infrastructure in terms of roads, water and sewer facilities, and provide funds to stimulate the social and economic development of the north; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, believe that the amount set aside for the northern development investments be equivalent to the amount set aside for the northern support grant in 1989, indexed on an annual basis."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in agreement with it.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This is a petition signed by hundreds of people in the Toronto area regarding the Wellesley Central Hospital Staying Alive campaign.

"We, the undersigned, are vehemently opposed to the proposed closure of the Wellesley Central Hospital. We see this as cutting services, which will negatively affect the overall health of our community. We are deeply concerned about our future health care for treatment of acute illnesses and emergency care.

"We support the alliance between Wellesley Central Hospital and Women's College Hospital as the only solution."

I am proud to have affixed my signature.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 350 people. It reads as follows.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege today to rise and read into the record a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

I'm pleased to support this.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on September 6, 1995, Anthony O'Brien Dudley George of Stony Point First Nations 43 was shot and killed by Acting Sergeant Kenneth Deane of the Ontario Provincial Police; and

"Whereas the Ontario Provincial Police met with a representative from the Premier's office before the massive police buildup that led to the death of Anthony O'Brien Dudley George; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario need to know what role the government played in ordering the Ontario Provincial Police to confront the Stony Point people with violence;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call a public inquiry into the Ontario Provincial Police shooting of Dudley George."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition signed by over 150 people from my riding of Dovercourt and West Toronto in general, which reads as follows.

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

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

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

"Without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

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

I agree with this petition and I've affixed my signature to it as well.

GAMBLING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Christians are called to a love of neighbour which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas gambling does not meet basic criteria for socially responsible economic development; and

"Whereas it is unethical to offer gambling as a source of economic security to people on low incomes, poor communities and poorly financed sectors of our community such as culture and sport; and

"Whereas gambling proceeds provide an insecure source of income and are a regressive form of funding and should not be relied on for funding of social services such as health care or for other agencies; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families both emotionally and economically;

"Therefore, we the undersigned of Guthrie United Church, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish more gambling casinos in Ontario; and that the government cease all action to legalize video lottery terminals."

That's signed by myself and 26 people and I have identical ones from people in Elmvale, Phelpston and Midland.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas bear hunting replaces natural mortality and reduces cannibalism among bears; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign of misinformation and emotional rhetoric to ban bear hunting and to end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition here, and rather than read the whole petition, I would just summarize it, if that's allowed under the new rules as it was under the old standing orders.

The petition contains 425 signatures of residents of Peterborough county who are registering a vote of non-confidence in the government of the province of Ontario. They've signed their names to the petition because they're dissatisfied with the government's lack of meaningful public consultation as it restructures, eliminates and downloads the cost of vital services in this province, and they want their views presented to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I am doing that and I'm supporting their petition by affixing my signature thereto.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas black bear populations in Ontario are healthy with between 75,000 and 100,000 animals and their numbers are stable or increasing in many areas of the province; and

"Whereas black bear hunting is enjoyed by over 20,000 hunters annually in Ontario and black bears are a well-managed renewable resource; and

"Whereas bear hunting replaces natural mortality and reduces cannibalism among bears; and

"Whereas hunting regulations are based on sustained yield principles and all forms of hunting are needed to optimize the socioeconomic benefits associated with hunting; and

"Whereas the value of the spring bear hunt to tourist operators in northern Ontario is $30 million annually, generating about 500 person-years of employment; and

"Whereas animal rights activists have launched a campaign to ban bear hunting and end our hunting heritage in Ontario, ignoring the enormous impact this would have on the people of Ontario;

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

"That the Ontario government protect our hunting heritage and continue to support all current forms of black bear hunting."

I'm pleased to sign my name to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly, and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the decision of closing Wellesley Central Hospital.

"We see this as cutting services which will negatively affect the overall health of our community.

"We are deeply concerned about our future health care for the treatment of acute illness and for emergency care.

"We support the alliance between Wellesley Central Hospital and Women's College Hospital as the only solution."

This is 648 residents of the city of Toronto. I agree with the petitioners and I have signed my name to it as well.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I also have a petition.

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the decision of closing Wellesley Central and Women's College hospitals.

"These cuts will negatively affect the overall health of our community.

"We are deeply concerned about the future care of women, people living with HIV-AIDS and the many people in the densely populated neighbourhoods served by these hospitals.

"We support the alliance between Wellesley Central Hospital and Women's College Hospital as the most reasonable solution, a solution that reduces costs and promotes the health of our community."

I am happy to affix my signature in support.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

I'm happy to affix my name as well.

GAMBLING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario. It's signed by 20 residents of Algoma district and it reads as follows:

"Whereas there is much well-documented evidence that the social and economic disadvantages of government-sanctioned gambling far outweigh any apparent benefits;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, declare our opposition to the expansion of casinos and the installation of electronic gambling devices. Therefore, we petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to delay the implementation of Bill 75 and request that the province hold a binding referendum (in conjunction with the 1997 municipal elections) to determine the will of the people regarding the expansion of casinos and the installation of electronic gambling devices in Ontario."

I'm signing the petition.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): A point of order, Madam Speaker, and in addition to a point of order, it's also a point of privilege. I would like to bring the following to your attention, bearing in mind a previous ruling by Speaker Stockwell with regard to information that ministries have publicized regarding what's happening here and when it's incorrect or before the fact.

On Thursday, August 21, the Ministry of Labour released a fact sheet which states that the review of Bill 99 will begin August 25. I would like to point out to you that on that very day that this was released, August 21, there was a subcommittee meeting of the standing committee on resources development, which is responsible for Bill 99. We agreed unanimously that the hearings for Bill 99 clause-by-clause would begin September 8.

The latest information I have, and it could have changed in the last few minutes, is that this information is still on the government's Web site on the Internet. I would like you to direct the Minister of Labour to correct this error.

I would also bring to your attention -- and I'll be very brief; I'm not deliberately trying to take up any time here. But I want to leave with you also that subsequent to the subcommittee meeting on Thursday where we reached unanimous agreement about September 8 -- the Libs, the government and the NDP all agreed -- since then, the government has been trying to get a full meeting of the committee or a new meeting of the subcommittee because they want to change the date. For some reason, the minister or someone high up is not happy. That's why I have particular concern about this, because it suggests that somebody thought it was a fait accompli that the change was going to take place.

That's the point of privilege, wherein the government shouldn't be sending someone to a subcommittee meeting cutting a deal that's then going to be vetoed by the Minister of Labour. That's not the way this works. Speaker, I would ask you to do what it takes to put my rights and privileges as a member and that of my caucus correct again.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Hamilton Centre, if you could provide me with the documentation I saw you waving around, if you could have that sent to me, I'll take a look at it and reserve judgement and get back to the House later.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, barely on the same topic, because I was outside and just caught the tail end of that: My understanding is that there may have been a committee

schedule with regard to Bill 99 -- I believe this is the topic -- but the subcommittee, as I understand, has met and I believe with the agreement of all three parties has come up with a new schedule. Now, I may be wrong in that, but that's the information I'm getting. I don't know if somebody else substituted or what happened there, but I understand that the subcommittee did meet and a new

schedule was arrived at. I don't know if that muddies the water or clarifies the situation.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the government House leader attempting to help, but I hear my Liberal counterpart, who is the other member of the subcommittee, along with usually the parliamentary assistant for the government, saying that he wasn't at any meeting. I am the member of that committee. There were no substitutions. There were no changes. We have unanimous agreement of all three parties that it's September 8, and quite frankly, all the gymnastics in the world by the --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. What I would suggest, given the statements from the government House leader, is that the three people involved from each party get together and see if you can work it out. In the meantime, if you could provide me with the documentation, I will see if there is in fact any breaking of the rules or privileges. Thank you.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would point out that under the new rules, the kind of meeting that you have just suggested might take place among the subcommittee members cannot take place today, because it's the same policy field as what is being debated in the House.

The Acting Speaker: That may be so. I guess my suggestion is that if this can be worked out, if there is some confusion about what happened, please do so, but in the meantime I will endeavour, after I receive the documentation, to check that and see if there has been any breach of the rules. Is that okay?

SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Another point of order, Madam Speaker: I would have raised this previously if I'd been here prior to the departure of the Honourable Chris Stockwell, Speaker of the assembly.

You will know that I raised a point of order on Thursday last with regard to the bill that was introduced on Thursday, a bill which was an omnibus bill amending 10 different pieces of legislation which, in my view, were not really related. The occupant of the Speaker's chair at the time indicated that the Speaker could and would review it. My friend the government House leader and also my friend the member for St Catharines spoke to the point of order. I was wondering if you could give us some information as to when you expect the Speaker to rule on this matter.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): If you could just give me a moment here.

Member for Algoma, I conferred with one of the table officers and I have no information as to when that ruling will be made. It's my understanding that the Speaker is still reviewing the documentation and will be getting back to the House shortly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSITION STABILITY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 VISANT À ASSURER LA STABILITÉ AU COURS DE LA TRANSITION DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

Mrs Witmer moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 136,

An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi prévoyant le règlement rapide des différends lors des négociations collectives dans certains secteurs, facilitant les négociations collectives à la suite de la restructuration dans le secteur public et apportant certaines modifications à la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et à la

Loi sur l'équité salariale.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I am very pleased to move second reading of Bill 136. The main principle of the Public Sector Transition Stability Act is simple and straightforward. It is to provide public sector employers and employees with the tools and processes to deal with the changes under way in the delivery of public services. It is a necessary and integral part of the restructuring of municipalities, school boards and hospitals as our government improves the accountability, the efficiency, the effectiveness and the affordability of public services.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't want to interrupt the minister particularly -- I'm sure most members would want to hear what she has to say -- but is there a quorum present?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, is there a quorum?

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Minister of Labour.

Hon Mrs Witmer: This government is committed to redefining and restructuring the delivery of public services from who pays to who delivers and to providing improved services with more accountability at less cost to the taxpayer. The reforms we are introducing are long overdue. The status quo is no longer acceptable if the province of Ontario is to grow and prosper into the 21st century.

Obviously among those most affected by these necessary changes are the nearly 450,000 Ontarians who work for our cities and towns, in our hospitals and schools and in our police stations and firehalls, the dedicated men and women we all depend on for the collective public services we too often take for granted and who make a significant contribution to the quality of life we enjoy in Ontario. For many of these individuals the restructuring process will mean different employers, perhaps different bargaining units and perhaps new collective agreements.

More than 3,300 collective agreements could be part of the transition as municipalities, school boards and health care facilities merge, amalgamate or reorganize. School boards alone will decrease from 129 to just 72 at the beginning of the year. By January 1, Ontario will have reduced its number of municipalities from 815 to about 650, and in Toronto alone the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended that the 39 hospitals currently operating in 46 separate facilities be reduced to 24 organizations operating 31 inpatient sites and four outpatient sites.

As you can appreciate, special processes are needed to ensure that these employees, whether they are unionized or not, are treated as fairly as possible as the changes unfold. Uncertainty over how it will happen must be minimized for both the employees and the employers. Bill 136 provides the framework for the transition. Bill 136 will create the new temporary processes and rules to deal with the volume of onetime, often complex labour relations issues that are likely to arise from mergers, amalgamations and restructuring.

Bill 136 will also provide often-asked-for permanent reforms to the current compulsory arbitration system in the police, fire and hospital sectors where strikes are not permitted. Bill 136, unlike the contract-nullifying social contract of the previous government, builds on Ontario's long-standing tradition of collective bargaining. Bill 136, contrary to the cries from the opposition benches, respects the tradition of collective bargaining.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Bull.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It is based on the fact that employers, employees and unions can best find satisfactory solutions to the unique labour relations issues in their workplaces.

The reforms in Bill 136 will ensure that the workplace parties have the opportunity to do this during the restructuring process. We know that when the workplace parties bargain in good faith it is to everyone's advantage, since they are more committed to achieving the outcomes.

However, if, as may be the case in some instances, the workplace parties are unable to resolve these issues despite their very best efforts, Bill 136 provides the legal and institutional framework to solve them in a timely, fair and reasonable manner. After all, we are dealing here with the delivery of very important public sector services, services the taxpayers of Ontario rely on and depend on being delivered efficiently and effectively.

It is incumbent upon all of us to see that the uncertainty inherent in the restructuring process is minimized -- minimized for the employers, the employees and the recipients of those services, the taxpayers of Ontario who pay for them. That is the principle behind Bill 136.

Most of its provisions are of a temporary nature to deal with the onetime, unique problems restructuring will raise in many bargaining units across Ontario. There is no hidden agenda. There is no elimination of successor rights. There is no unilateral removal of bargaining rights. These are concrete, specific provisions for assisting public sector employers and employees in dealing with the restructuring of our public sector services. We believe the provisions are fair and balanced for all parties.

The modernization of Ontario's public sector service delivery is under way. Bill 136 is a necessary part of the restructuring.

Before I deal with some of the specifics of Bill 136 as they now stand, let me say that they are not etched in stone. The principle, yes; the specifics, no. If there are suggestions, from whatever quarter, to improve the bill, we are more than ready to listen and consider them. As you well know, we are presently in discussions with the police, and I have extended an invitation to the labour leaders and to Mr Wilson in order that we can meet and also consider any suggestions they may have.

I hope I will hear some suggestions, both as the bill is examined in committee and in the ongoing discussions that are now in progress and future discussions. Fairness to public sector employers, employees and taxpayers demands that a consistent set of balanced rules be in place to smooth the transition to the restructuring of government services.

I would like to turn to Bill 136. It will actually create two new acts. The first is the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act. This will establish the temporary Labour Relations Transition Commission, and it will deal with the high volume of complex labour issues that may arise as the result of the school board, hospital and municipal mergers and amalgamations. However, it may not be necessary for the parties to access the commission that is provided here if they can solve their own labour relations issues.

As I said before, our legislation is quite different from the Social Contract Act. As you know, that act intervened in the collective bargaining process. In fact, there was an override of existing agreements and in effect it forced most employers to impose wage rollbacks and social contract days. Furthermore, the social contract, unlike our legislation, was passed with minimal consultations with affected parties and was presented as a fait accompli. In fact, the Social Contract Act received first reading on June 14, 1993, and royal assent less than one month later, on July 8, 1993.

That's less than one month for debate and passage, and it was imposed despite strong opposition from organized labour and without any public hearings.

By contrast, Bill 136 will be the subject of public hearings and, as I indicated before, we look forward to the consultation. Bill 136 also will not restrict the freedom of parties to resolve collective bargaining issues and negotiate their own collective agreements; in fact it encourages the parties to use negotiation as the first and best option. However, if that is not possible, the commission, with its temporary mandate which ends on December 31, 2001, will be available should either party wish to use it as a fair and expeditious vehicle for resolving outstanding labour relations issues.

When an amalgamation or a merger does take place, we're going to have two or more workplaces coming together. These workplaces obviously will have operated under different collective agreements with different terms of employment and probably they will have been represented by different bargaining agents. As well, some of the issues we'll be facing are the mergers of unionized and non-unionized workplaces. In order that we treat all the individuals fairly, there will be a need for a consistent set of rules to assist the parties in arriving at a solution to the various labour relations questions that may arise.

For example, what will happen when members of two or more bargaining units are brought together? What will be the size and shape of the new bargaining unit? Which union will represent the members of a new bargaining unit when you bring two or more unions together? What happens when unionized and non-unionized workers are combined? Which collective agreement will apply during the transition? How will seniority be determined?

In all of these cases the responsibility will be on the workplace parties -- the employers, the employees and the unions -- to develop their own solutions through negotiation. However, it is only if they are unable to come to an agreement that the Labour Relations Transition Commission has the power to resolve the issue. For example, if a single union does not represent a substantial majority of employees or if the unions are unable to agree which union will represent employees when two or more come together, the transition commission will be able to determine the matter by ordering a mandatory secret ballot vote. Again, this will enhance workplace democracy in the choice of a union.

Currently under

section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has the discretion to make an order stating which union will represent employees in a newly unified workplace or it can order a secret vote by the employees. Bill 136, however, will require the Labour Relations Transition Commission to order a mandatory secret ballot vote by the employees if there is not agreement on union representation or if no single union has the required majority of employees in the new workplace.

I'd just like to review what could happen in the instance of a majority. When two unions are involved, in order to be the representative, one union must have at least 75% of the employees. In the case of the amalgamation of three or more unions, the union must have at least 60% of the employees to become a union representing the employees.

What happens if we have an instance where we bring together employees who are non-unionized and unionized and we have at least 40% of these employees who are not represented by a union? In this instance there will be the option of including non-union representation on the secret ballot. As you know, this 40% figure is consistent with the Labour Relations Act certification and decertification provisions where a vote is conducted by the board when at least 40% of a workplace indicates a desire to either become unionized or to decertify the union.

So in an amalgamation or a merger, they will be able to also determine, if more than 40% are non-unionized, whether they want to continue with union representation.

Let's take a look at the issue of seniority, because it's going to be imperative that we protect the seniority of each and every employee, whether they're unionized or not. We must ensure fair treatment, and the act requires that for seniority purposes equal recognition is given to the relevant years of service of both unionized and non-unionized employees. The new workplace will also require a temporary collective agreement. Bill 136 provides for a composite collective agreement, which means it can be made up of all the previous collective agreements and those can temporarily apply.

This means the employees will temporarily continue to be covered by their previous collective agreements even though they may be in a new bargaining unit. Employees who were not represented by a union before the reorganization will continue to be covered by their previous contract of employment during this interim period.

Once the composite agreement is in place, the employer and union can choose to continue with that agreement for up to one year, or, depending on the needs of the workplace, the employer and union can agree to a new collective agreement based on one of the collective agreements that existed before the amalgamation or merger. However, another option available is that the parties can jointly ask the Labour Relations Transition Commission to choose one of the existing agreements to apply. At this stage, either the union or employer can choose to begin the process of negotiating a new collective agreement by giving notice to bargain.

If such notice is given and the parties would normally have the right to strike or lockout, either party now has 30 days to indicate that if negotiations are unsuccessful, the dispute will be settled by the new Dispute Resolution Commission rather than resorting to a strike or lockout. This alternative was put in place to ensure that disruptions of service to the taxpayer during this period of restructuring in the public sector are minimized. However, I should remind the members that if neither the employer nor the union wishes to exercise this option, the right to strike or lockout still remains.

Let me remind members that the option is available under current legislation. Recently, the 4,200 civic workers in Ontario's second-largest municipality, Ottawa-Carleton, opted for binding arbitration in contract negotiations, thus themselves forgoing the right to strike. I don't remember anyone inside or outside the union claiming that their bargaining rights were taken away.

Let's not forget that more than half the broader public sector employees, for example, the police, the fire and the hospital sector, don't presently have the right to strike. Once the first post-amalgamation or merger collective agreement is reached, the provisions of Bill 136 will no longer apply and the parties will revert to the traditional collective bargaining process.

Labour leaders had indicated prior to the passage of Bill 136 that they were concerned about the elimination of successor rights and overrides of collective agreements. We listened. Our legislation does not eliminate successor rights and it does not override collective agreements.

As well, we responded to their concerns about contracting out. If this is to occur, it is an option that is going to be up for negotiation between the workplace parties.

We have also recognized the uniqueness of the construction trade unions. We know they bargain under a different process, and so my officials have been consulting with those parties in the public sector construction industry regarding the application of this act to the construction trade unions, which have construction bargaining rights in the broader public sector. I'm optimistic that they can reach their own conclusion and outcomes.

I'd like to turn now to the second act in Bill 136, the Public Sector Dispute Resolution Act. This act will permanently reform arbitration in the fire, police and hospital sectors, where strikes and lockouts are not permitted today.

Mr Christopherson: Shame on you, Elizabeth.

Hon Mrs Witmer: In these sectors, binding arbitration is used when the parties are unable to reach an agreement. In fact, I just referred to the fact that Ottawa-Carleton opted for that option.

Mr Christopherson: Fair arbitration.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Almost half of the employees in the broader public sector currently don't have the right to strike. We're talking about 25,000 police officers in local forces and the OPP. We're talking about the nearly 10,000 full-time firefighters and the 192,000 workers in the hospitals and nursing homes.

What this act will do is to create a permanent Dispute Resolution Commission to promote and encourage negotiated settlements and resolve disputes should those negotiations fail in these sectors. This is what has been asked for.

Mr Christopherson: Your handpicked cronies.

The Acting Speaker: Minister, take your seat a moment. Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order, please. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: This new process will address the concerns that have been expressed for many years and will ensure that the system is more accountable to the taxpayer as well.

Concerns about the present arbitration system have been raised in a number of studies, including a 1994 study by Dr Joseph Rose of McMaster University's faculty of business titled The Complaining Game: How Effective is Compulsory Interest Arbitration? Dr Rose's study found that arbitrated wages settled in Ontario from 1982 to 1990 exceeded private sector settlements achieved through collective bargaining by up to 2% per year. A study done in 1992 by well-known labour researcher John O'Grady titled Arbitration and its Ills found similar results.

In addition to these studies, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and two hospital inquiry commissions have called for the kind of changes to arbitration that we are now proposing in Bill 136.

As well, in past years, both employers and unions have complained about the long delays in the current arbitration process. Currently it takes on average three times longer to settle an agreement in non-strike sectors than in the private sector. Since the beginning of 1995, it has taken an average of four months to settle agreements in the private sector. During the same time period, it has taken more than 12 months to achieve the same results in the non-strike sector using interest arbitration.

On average, arbitrated police agreements are concluded approximately 13 months after the expiry of the previous agreement. In the fire sector the figure is even longer, 20 months, and in the hospital sector agreements are finalized nearly two years after the expiry of a contract. This stands in stark contrast to the private sector where, as I indicated, it is all concluded within four months on average. This means that in some cases the employers and unions are learning the final result of an arbitration after the term of the arbitrated contract is over. As I indicated, it may be 13 months, 20 months or two years.

As well, both unions and employers in the non-strike sectors agree that the present system encourages employers and unions to rely on arbitrators to make decisions rather than seriously attempting to negotiate their own agreements. They would prefer a system that does encourage more face-to-face negotiations. Both parties agree that since arbitrators often tend to split the difference in their awards, there really is little incentive to negotiate.

To deal with these concerns and to encourage unions and employers to negotiate settlements, the Dispute Resolution Commission will have the ability to use a number of alternative dispute resolution methods, including final offer selection or mediation-arbitration.

Under final offer selection, the employer and union would submit their final offer to a decision-maker, who then chooses one of the two offers. Final offer selection could be used for the entire agreement or on an issue-by-issue basis, or any other way the commission believes appropriate. This method strongly encourages the parties to be very realistic in the final offer they put on the table.

Another method available to the commission is mediation-arbitration. In this situation, the person appointed by the commission acts as a mediator, assisting the parties to negotiate as much of the collective agreement as possible and then deciding the remaining outstanding issues.

The Dispute Resolution Commission will consist of a number of commissioners headed by a chief commissioner. Where appropriate, the chief commissioner may also appoint side persons who participate in the decision-making process, and they would be nominees of unions and employers.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Conrad Black; that's who we'll have.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for St Catharines.

Hon Mrs Witmer: For both the Dispute Resolution Commission and the Labour Relations Transition Commission, the government will be seeking to appoint people with experience. The task at hand requires experienced and fairminded individuals.

The government today already appoints arbitrators where employers and unions cannot agree on an arbitrator to settle contracts in the police, fire and hospital sectors. It is important to note that employers and employees would not have to use the Dispute Resolution Commission. They would still have the option of having their dispute resolved through private arbitration if they both agree.

In addition to its permanent powers to resolve labour disputes in non-strike sectors, the DRC will also have a temporary mandate to administer a binding dispute resolution process during a first-contract negotiation following an amalgamation or a merger in other parts of the broader public sector. As I mentioned earlier, this power can only be exercised at the request of either party.

Bill 136 adopts the provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act that require both parties to bargain in good faith and make a serious effort to reach a negotiated settlement. Both parties will be required to go through the normal conciliation process before they can even apply to the Dispute Resolution Commission; that is, they will be required to have an outside party try to assist them in reaching an agreement.

If either party applies to the DRC before they have seriously bargained, the chief commissioner could order both sides back to the bargaining table. It is only after all other avenues are exhausted that the commission will step in and make an order to resolve the dispute.

By creating greater incentives for the parties to settle disputes themselves, this new process will not only encourage more effective negotiation, it will also protect taxpayers against unnecessary disruptions of public services through strikes or lockouts during this transitional period.

When compared to other jurisdictions, our legislation enhances the principle of collective bargaining by ensuring that the parties have an opportunity to determine outcomes that suit the unique needs of their workplaces.

In the past six years, I might note, there have been 29 separate pieces of legislation passed in Canada affecting public sector labour relations with a view to restructuring government. Governments across Canada in recent years have largely chosen to implement legislation that determines collective bargaining outcomes, either through direct collective agreement overrides or by extending collective agreements.

For example, if you take a look at both British Columbia and Saskatchewan, they have enacted regulations that determined new bargaining units and also determined which union would represent employees in those bargaining units. In both cases, the government didn't provide the parties with a process to negotiate their own solutions when determining new bargaining unit structures, as we have done. Neither government conducted representation votes or allowed the parties to achieve a negotiated solution as to which union will represent which employees. That determination was made by government regulation. In that process, a number of unions lost bargaining rights.

It is clear, therefore, that our approach is very different. By enshrining the ability to negotiate solutions independently, we continue to respect the principle of collective bargaining and we continue to allow the parties the primary role in determining collective agreements that are appropriate to their unique workplaces.

I now want to turn to two other aspects of the legislation. To facilitate restructuring and to address some other concerns, we are introducing some amendments to the Pay Equity Act. Bill 136, if approved, will allow for more flexibility in establishing pay equity adjustments where there is a sale of a business, including an amalgamation.

The current Pay Equity Act requires a new employer in an amalgamated or newly purchased organization to develop a new pay equity plan if the previous plan is no longer deemed appropriate. For example, if two municipalities are merged, a new plan may be required if the old plans are no longer appropriate. For example, you may have different wage rates and yet have similar jobs, so obviously there's going to be a need to take a look at the whole issue of pay equity because different adjustments have been made within the different organizations.

Currently, today, the law does not allow the new plan to lower any previous adjustments, even where that would be more rational and appropriate in the new organization. Under the amendments in our bill, the prohibition on reducing the pay equity adjustment in these cases will be removed.

Bill 136 will also provide that in the broader public sector pay equity adjustments will have to be made back to the time an employee made a complaint, a union tried to negotiate a pay equity plan or a pay equity plan was posted, rather than back to January 1, 1990, as is now the case.

These amendments are going to clarify the responsibilities of the new employer, following an amalgamation or a merger, for making these payments.

Bill 136 also clarifies that people who provide private home day care under the provisions of the Day Nurseries Act are not considered employees under the Pay Equity Act and, as such, are not eligible for pay equity adjustments. These are individuals who are contracted by some municipalities and other agencies to provide day care in their own homes. It was never intended that these self-employed, private home day care providers be considered employees under the act.

Finally, Bill 136 will allow us to take the steps to wind down the employee wage protection program. This is the very last program in Canada that uses taxpayer funds to cover the employers' financial obligations to their employees. Unfortunately, this program has not lived up to its expectations. When the program was established, it was expected that a large portion of money would be recovered either from the employers who had refused to pay or from the directors of bankrupt or insolvent companies. Unfortunately, this has never happened. The total recovery stands at just over $8.5 million on government payouts of approximately $200 million.

Mr Christopherson: So let the workers get stiffed. Let your buddies go bankrupt and let the workers get stiffed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The poor collections record is partly the result of actions that were taken by the previous government. It was the previous government which disbanded the collections unit of the employment practices branch and they placed the onus for both enforcement and collections on the employment standards officers in the field. As a result, when that was done by the previous government, collections dropped approximately 25%.

However, we want to ensure that these employees receive the compensation that they deserve from their former employers and we are going to continue to press the federal government to amend --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon Mrs Witmer: -- the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide a higher creditor status to employees.

Even though I first wrote to industry minister Manley in August 1995 on this issue, and even though I received the support of the provincial and territorial labour ministers from across Canada at the federal-provincial labour conference in February of this year, the federal government has refused to consider the interest of these employees and change the legislation. Nevertheless, we will continue to press for improved status of employee claims under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

In conclusion, if Bill 136 is passed by the House, it will promote and encourage a timely, fair and orderly transition to a more efficient and effective public service. It will also encourage the workplace parties to cooperatively resolve their issues through collective bargaining. However, if they are unable to do so, there will be a process in place to ensure that the issues are resolved in a fair, timely and expeditious manner and also a process that treats each employee, whether unionized or not, fairly.

Bill 136 builds on Ontario's tradition of collective bargaining and is consistent with our government's balanced approach to collective bargaining. We have not intervened to impose a solution on any major public sector dispute such as the ones in the Ontario public service, Ontario Hydro or the Toronto Transit Commission. Instead, we have continued to put in place fair and balanced processes to encourage the workplace parties to negotiate their own solutions.

We expect, as the amalgamations and the mergers take place, that the workplace parties will continue to bargain in good faith as they have in the past and they will continue to arrive at agreements that will benefit everyone in the new workplace.

I want to make it clear that our government looks forward to receiving constructive comments from all parties on how we can improve Bill 136